- Only 57 fossil fuels and cement producers have been responsible for most of the world’s CO2 emissions since 2016, according to the Carbon Majors report by InfluenceMap
- Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, and Coal India were the top three CO2-emitting companies during this period.
- InfluenceMap’s database aims to increase transparency around climate change contributors for legal, academic, campaign, and investor purposes.
This just in: few companies supply energy to our planet.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. These are massive conglomerates that will keep pumping as long as the demand exists
Yeah - those headlines do more harm than good as people will just point fingers and think it’s enough to shut those companies down in order to fix climate change…
As long as there’s demand other companies will step in and then instead of those few you have 10-20 supplying the same amount of oil with nothing gained
subsidy and investment on green energy are great ideas to cut the cycle. they could be doing that.
instead we subsidy and invest in fossil fuels instead…
How would there ever be less demand if these same companies sabotage any alternative?
Tax them!
Do taxes reduce emissions?
In theory, making the commodity more expensive changes some decisions about how much to use
In theory, the vice tax goes toward mitigating the effects of the vice, or preventive efforts.
So, no. The tax isn’t enough to change behavior nor is the money raised enough to help prevent or mitigate, even if it were targeted to those efforts
The tax isn’t even nearly enough to cover road maintenance, although a little more should help
I might argue that demand for gasoline is relatively inelastic. You can adjust the price quite a bit before people change their consumption habits, simply because transit options are inflexible and relatively small portions of one’s overall budget.
A better alternative might be to invest in mass transit infrastructure - rail, bus, and bike/pedestrian options - that undercut the existing private car market. In cities like Tokyo, London, Moscow, Amsterdam, Shanghai, and NYC, where rail/bus/pedestrian options are abundant and commercial real estate isn’t obligated to accommodate one car per visitor, you have much lower energy consumed per capita and much smaller amounts of waste generated when moving people and material equivalent distance.
We incentivize consumption based on our most cheap and abundant available mode of transit. I might argue that raising gas taxes and funneling that towards new road construction would have the opposite intended effect if your goal was reducing emissions.
raising gas taxes and funneling that towards new road construction
That wasn’t my main point. However one of the criticisms of EVs in particular is they don’t pay for road upkeep via gas taxes. While true, gas taxes generally don’t cover maintenance anyway so that’s a weak point. There’s also a minor point that infrastructure that is overloaded or in poor condition does contribute to a variety of sustainability issues, including excess CO2 emissions. It’s definitely not the main point though.
Personally I would want a gas tax mostly targeted to transit or personal mobility but the key point being that it be scheduled to increase every year. Gasoline use is relatively inelastic in that you still need to get places and that may be your only choice, and the gas tax is low enough to not be a decider anyway. However, maybe the threat that it will continue to increase will help drive different decisions for the longer term. This lets us avoid punishing low income people with a large increase, while hopefully having a similar impact on decisions
However one of the criticisms of EVs in particular is they don’t pay for road upkeep via gas taxes.
You could make a very similar argument about 18-wheelers and other super-heavy vehicles. Road erosion scales geometrically to vehicle size, but gas consumption is - at best - linear. So the excess weight of the vehicle is effectively a free rider when you scale up from your Geo Metro to a Hummer.
Personally I would want a gas tax mostly targeted to transit or personal mobility but the key point being that it be scheduled to increase every year.
I mean, shy of a Gas Stalin doing environmental dictatorship shit, I don’t see how this is politically feasible. A gas tax is already fairly regressive. Raising it annually would create a popular outburst with every turn of the ratchet. And you wouldn’t even have the Mega-Corps/Banks on your side, unlike when landlords raise their rents.
Seems like an invitation to riots, not unlike what we’ve seen in Europe and the Middle East.
If oil/fuel/emission is taxed, yes.
It IS taxed. Virtually every state has a gas tax. California has one of the highest gas taxes in the nation, at $.51/gal.
Tax them more. Until burning oil for energy isn’t economically feasible anymore.
Does the tax rate by state influence the energy consumption per capita?
Yeah, US states are a bit too independent imo.
Isn’t that used for building and maintaining the roads?
In part.
They do if they are high enough.
Taxes in theory reduce consumption because the price increases, like the 25% tax on Chinese EVs levied by the U.S. to protect… the fossil fuel industry.
the 25% tax on Chinese EVs levied by the U.S. to protect… the
fossil fuel industrydomestic EV marketIf you want to talk about US fossil fuel protectionism, check out the patient on the nickel metal battery - first used in GE’s EV1 to great success - which was purchased and squatted on by Texaco/Chevron for over twenty years.
Modern regulation is far more about insourcing the production of Lithium Ion batteries (a highly lucrative market for auto manufacturers because of the crazy market ups) than shielding the fossil fuel industries from a technology that’s been widespread globally for over a decade.
No but they make liberals feel good, which has the same effect.
No no it’s regular people not putting plastic take-out containers in the recycling bin doing it!
It’s everyone. We’re all responsible. These companies only produce this much because we’re buying the shit. You’re doing exactly what you claim theyre doing: blaming others so you don’t have to take any responsibility for yourself.
No, they are highly subsidized, have a cartel, and have access to legislators (if you think U.S. lobbying is bad, Gazprom is owned by an oligarch and Aramco is literally the royal family’s business). The success of their business model (or failure if you look at it in reality) hinges on supression of information, supression of competition, price fixing, violence etc.
These companies only produce this much because that is what they need to do to get the profit they expect, and last year they decided to produce a little less because they wanted a little more profit. It has nothing to do with consumer choice because consumers for the most part don’t have a choice.
Buy 2nd hand, go without, repair, repurpose, grow some food if you can.
It has nothing to do with consumer choice because consumers for the most part don’t have a choice.
I live in a very walkable area among relatively wealthy people. The reason we picked here was partially, but significantly, because we could walk into our little downtown so we didn’t have to drive everywhere. I still regularly see people in the downtown who have driven there from right next door. Hell, even sometimes I’ve been lazy and done it myself.
We also have access to a little store that doesn’t use plastic and focuses on decreasing environmental footprint and landfill usage. I’ve actually had neighbors make fun of me for going there. I didn’t even realize how little I needed a lot of the consumer conveniences I was using until I switched to primarily this store. I was making a consumer choice (well, mainly, my wife, I would have been more conscious about it. Luckily she is now fully on board, maybe even more so than me) that I thought made sense. . .but it really didn’t. It was unnecessarily wasteful for almost zero gain. Razors, dishsoap, laundry detergent, shampoo, handsoap. . .we just refill all of these things now.
I tend to bike to work (I know, I’m lucky because it’s only about a 3 mile bike for me and relatively safe). The parking lot of my office has plenty of high end SUVs and even large pickup trucks. It’s safe to say that the people who actually regularly need a vehicle like this is near zero. The consumer is making the choice to buy these huge vehicles.
And let’s talk about meat. Hell, it’s 2024 and I still hear people talk about how mainly it is to eat meat and brag about how they eat it every night. We could be better, but we’ve certainly move towards a more plant-based diet.
I get that the consumer is not the only thing, and corporations need to change too. But this idea that the consumer is somehow innocent in all of this doesn’t reflect the reality that I clearly see around me. People are constantly making just bad choices that are pissing on the environment. . .and this constant “don’t blame the consumer!” I see being pushed is just, as I said in another post, an attempt to deal with the cognitive dissonances of pretending to care about this while at the same time doing jack shit to limit your own personal impact.
They also knew about climate change in the 1970s and deliberately hid that information and spent massive amounts of money to attack anyone who tried to blow the whistle.
Of course and what is it that they want you to do? Just cut your food intake, eat lab meat, lab milk, bugs, and live in a shoebox. When food production in the USA is 9% of all carbon emissions. And out of those 9%, less than 3.8% is meat. While the cruise ship industry is 3.3% of total, worldwide.
Meanwhile, our CEO’s, their boards, and their extended families, and largest stockholders go on, out on yatchs, zipping around in private jets, go to massive, endless, exorbitant decadent private events and eat whatever they want, whenever they want, because… suck it, pleb.
And then they go online asking you to reduce your carbon footprint. It’s a joke
Total scam…
Yes, rich people produce more emissions. We know this. If you live in the west and are regularly eating meat, you’re one of those rich people producing more emissions unnecessarily. The fact that there are those richer than you producing more than you doesn’t change the fact that you are one of them to the vast majority of the world.
This whole pointing up is just an attempt to deal with the cognitive dissonance of claiming to care about it, but at the same time not wanting to make any personal sacrifices when it comes to actually addressing the problem.
We all need to shift our behavior. Not just the ultra wealthy.
I’m not making my life worse while the wealthy get to continue their wanton consumption. I’m gonna enjoy the decline if they’re the ones causing it. As soon as people gain the political will to make the world better, hit me up.
You’re clearly educated, and admitting that you have the wealth to burn “enjoying” it. You are the wealthy continuing your wanton consumption. You are exactly what you hate, and just like those you hate, you are just selfishly thinking about yourself. You are no different from them because you are them.
Ethiopian farmers dying due to climate change-induced famine watching him enjoy himself: “great work, brother. Stick it to the man.”
while saying “my fellow poor brethren! We’re in this together”
I’m working class. Putting working class people who enjoy steak on the same level of the people that perpetuate capitalism in the name of sacrificing everyone for their own material benefit shows that you are a feckless liberal who cares about the appearance of progress, not actual progress.
not actual progress.
It’s funny because you are the one arguing that you don’t have to do anything or change anything until other people do. Not me. You keep projecting, and you always seem to hate that thing about the people you are projecting it onto.
The only difference between you and me is that I actually put my money where my mouth is that I recognize that, even as a working class American, I’m actually one of the wealthy and thus I should be leading the way, rather than absolving myself by demanding other people go first.
All fine and good except those 57 companies encompass 80% of all fossil fuel business right?
I’m not saying it doesn’t need to be fixed, but I am saying that it’s misleading.
I think the takeaway is that it’s a lot easier to change the behavior of 57 companies than it is to change the behavior of billions of people and it’s bullshit that individual action is the only proposed solution to climate change under capitalism.
Not just that, but individual action among a sea of intentional obfuscation, green washing, and while still pushing overconsumption.
That’s a nice dream. I hope it can come true, but those 57 companies also own 90% of the US Congress and probably a large swath of the governments in 2nd and third-world countries. The people that need to make them stop are almost literally on their payroll.
Focusing on those 57 companies doesn’t really address that issue though.
These companies sell fossil fuels. If they actually reduce those sales in any significant way we’d still have to figure out how to get all their customers switched to other fuel sources.
There’s a huge demand for their product so when we go after one of them the others take their place and they’re collectively too big to take on all at once.
The most successful strategy seems to be to make them obsolete. We’ve finally been getting to the point where many renewable energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuels. The other big motivator is fear of the control that oil producing nations might have. There’s some element of individual action but it’s more about government policies and market pressure. Take China or the EU, for example. They’ve been shifting heavily away from fossil fuels. Some of that is likely due to the increasing domestic and international concerns about pollution. They’re also both net oil importers.
That may be boring stuff to most people but it really gets the attention of governments that don’t want to be at the mercy of oil exporters. The kind of attention that gets meaningful laws passed.
Its even more misleading that you would count the fossil fuels used by other companies towards the producer. You can’t decrease the emissions by doing anything about these companies (without collapsing the whole economy), you need to transition the consumers to different energy sources.
It is like saying the Water companies are responsible for 100% of water usage…
I agree and the market is not offering an affordable, equally capable alternative to combustion engines. EVs are a larp for anyone who needs to do more than just commute to and from work. (e.g. long distance travel, towing, hauling)
This is the best idea I’ve seen for hauling. It’s also basically open source.
This is the best idea I’ve seen for hauling. It’s also basically open source.
Electrified rail will always be superior. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we already have the tech to switch over to low carbon/carbon neutral transportation.
With that said, I’d still 100% prefer something like that over diesel, especially if used in conjunction with this tech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg
Trains should be the overwhelming majority of the transportation, with the last mile being electrified trucks.
Electrified rail is great if it’s available but it’s more than often not. In the absence of the electrified tracks trains use a diesel generator electric engine hybrid to haul which isn’t terrible imo. Trains are just a part of the logistical puzzle though. Trucking is THE way things get from point A to point B in the US and it’s not going away anytime soon. The kind of infrastructure required for the solution in your video is cool but to your point probably needs to be paired with some hybrid technology so trucks can still thrive in flyover country where building and maintaining electric highway infrastructure isn’t pragmatic.
Electrified rail is great if it’s available but it’s more than often not.
Trucking is THE way things get from point A to point B in the US and it’s not going away anytime soon.
I am aware of the current situation, the “is”, I was instead talking about the “ought”.
We currently depend on trucking and diesel trains, but we ought to switch to electrified rail and truck.
The kind of infrastructure required for the solution in your video is cool
It’s cool, and a huge change. A necessary change though.
probably needs to be paired with some hybrid technology so trucks can still thrive in flyover country where building and maintaining electric highway infrastructure isn’t pragmatic.
For rural areas, trains are the way to go. They are faster, lower carbon emission, and all round lower energy requirements per unit of freight.
The only real problem with them is hills, which isn’t exactly a problem for the majority of the U.S.
Let’s not forget about the US military which is the number 1 polluter in the world
Most of the world’s carbon emissions come from burning fossil fuels, so, yes, it would be those fossil fuel producers who would be linked to those emissions. I suppose we could all come together and force those companies to shut down and cease operations immediately. Global greenhouse gas emissions would plummet, but the global economy would collapse and there would be mass starvation and death.
So, lets start by building food sources as much removed from oil as possible.
Invest into low-energy housing.
Continue with green energy.
Stop building everything else.
Forget about economy, planned obsolence, and start discussing distribution of natural resources and investing into science.
“Forget about the economy” is an impossible sell in every nation. Even command economies are obsessed with economic numbers, and not without reason. When the economy declines, so does people’s quality of life.
They’re the ones who have kept us from putting anything else in place though.
I suppose we could all come together and force those companies to shut down
Force, how?
Well, its very hard to rape the earth with an extra hole in your head. Or so I’m told; ive never actually tried myself.
Right?! These posts are so dumb. And yes, some people think we should force fossil fuels immediately off the map. But, ya know, mass starvation and death. You forgot war. Basically the worst parts of the Bible.
But, ya know, mass starvation and death.
What exactly do you think will follow if we keep on destroying the Earth? Or are you just ok with that scenario because it will likely be after you got yours?
China needs to move away from coal. This would be a huge change in global emissions.
Why are they counting emissions at extraction and not consumption?
If the companies leave the carbon they own in the ground then it won’t get burnt.
How are we supposed to know what the end user will use it for? They could be burning it or bathing in it.
Skin contact can cause irritation, burns, swelling, pain, and permanent damage. Inhalation or ingestion can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness etc…
https://www.arnolditkin.com/blog/injury/dangers-of-crude-oil-is-your-health-at-risk-/
But I better watch my use of straws!
Probably more to do with consolidation than anything else.
But it’s the straws and charging for plastic bags that’ll make a real impact.
There’s more than one type of pollution, and, likewise, more than one thing we can all do to help clean up our environment.
Since my city banned plastic bags and instituted a bag fee, everyone has switched to reusable bags. Gone are the days of plastic bags strewn about, gathered in gutters, stuck in trees in trees for years. Dystopian shit. I’m glad they’re gone. I have to use other things for scooping out the cat box, but I make do.
Every little bit helps, and the more that contribute, the bigger the impact.
I’m glad to hear that the policy has led to visible, positive change in your community.
Those days are gone in a few countries, sadly not most. Here trash is burnt every day outside houses.
The biggest opposition were those loudly complaining about 2 things: the inconvenience and the supposed cost.
About that:
- it was inconvenient— at first. Everyone had to go out and get reusable bags. Fortunately, almost every store sold them. They even had their own logos in them, which presented marketing opportunities. They’re usually made of environmentally-friendly, recycled materials, are strong and cheap. They fold up tiny, and one can carry 3-4 in the bottom of a backpack without noticing they’re there. With a proper phase-in, it’s hardly noticeable.
- the cost is marginal for the shopper and saves the stores huge amounts of money on bags. It even makes them money, as they charge for single-use paper bags. Shoppers typically buy however reusable bags they need per trip (or if they forget to bring one), so they often don’t buy all of them at once.m, so the cost is usually spread out.
The rollout was pretty painless overall for us, and everyone was really happy when we finally did it.
What if we made our local communities less trashy and polluted for no reason?!
Get out of here with your “nice places to live” and your “non-polluted environment”, goddamn commie!
If the river doesn’t catch on fire once in a while, why even buy a riverfront property?
Free heating, how can anyone complain?
Fossil fuel use does not in and of itself release microplastics.
Plastic products does.
Isn’t the main concern of plastic that it promotes the release of greenhouse gases? If these companies are responsible for most CO2 emissions, plastics being the minority, we should be prioritizing these companies over individual people.
No, the main concern of plastic is that it contaminates the environment and doesn’t go away.
Sure but greenhouse gas emissions are the biggest driver for climate change and fossil fuels are by far the largest contributor.
There are more environmental problems than just CO2.
While plastics use up limited fossil fuels and do result in more CO2 emissions, I’m much more worried about plastics everywhere for always.
- Plastic in your organs, including brain
- plastics throughout our food supply chain
- plastics in unborn fetuses
- plastics in animals and plants, water and soil
- plastics in rain
People have been exposed to these things for generations. Individusl humans have a finite lifespan, but CO2 emissions are edging the species towards extinction. Probably more important.
They really haven’t been.
While yes , there have been plastics for a couple generations now, what’s different is the sheer quantity and the ubiquity. It’s much more recent that plastics are everywhere, in everyone. Most plastics should be relatively inert but some are not and many have been found to be dangerous in quantity or over longer time. All are unknown when permanently incorporated into your body, and that of all living things.
unfortunately there is more than one thing with the potential to drive species to extinction, including humans. If plastics are one of them, we will find out too late and it will be a much bigger cleanup effort than global warming
If you can get corporations to lower CO2 emissions, you can get them to shift away from plastics. The consumer doesn’t have all the power, especially when they can barely afford to meet basic needs.
Plastics are definitely a problem but shaming people about climate change is frustrating when the biggest impact on environmental issues comes from corporations and some people don’t have access to it can’t afford to shift towards a more eco friendly lifestyle.
