100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions
independent.co.uk
100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions
#2And 90% of consumers are responsible to buy from these 100 companies?
Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions
#3This article makes out like the companies themselves are directly responsible, rather than the customers of these companies, i.e. you and me. We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services. Not to say there's not things a company can do to improve it's efficiency, but ultimately, a company isn't going to keep their factories firing away if no one is buying their stuff.
The same argument can be applied when people look at China and think they are the problem because of their high use of coal and manufacturing industry. Well, I'd guess that a lot of their output is going to Western consumers, so again, it is they who are responsible.
Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions
#4And 90% of consumers are responsible to buy from these 100 companies?
Exactly, this is the fallacy that we need "other people", like politicians to solve climate change for us.
Try voting with your wallet and changing your bank.
Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions
#5This article makes out like the companies themselves are directly responsible, rather than the customers of these companies, i.e. you and me. We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services. Not to say there's not things a company can do to improve it's efficiency, but ultimately, a company isn't going to keep their factories firing away if no one is buying their stuff.…
Ah yes, what's better than trying to shift the blame from the actual people and groups doing this, to individuals, who often don't even know better? No need to address the companies or (dare I say) suggest regulations. It's the consumer who should think about this, he's the center of the market universe - besides 7 billion other centers - and only he - with the coincidental cooperation of all other 7 billion people - can change this. How? Why by consuming... ethically. Then the companies can still go on doing what they so, find market, created deals nobody knows of, destroy the environment and infiltrate governments with their "special interests". All the consumer has to do is spend more money on fancy stuff, and he doesn't have to feel guilty anymore. It's all ok! It might not be easy to ensure that all the people consume "correctly", but it's sure easier than trying to address the companies to produce "correctly". It's just basis economics.
Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions
#6This article makes out like the companies themselves are directly responsible, rather than the customers of these companies, i.e. you and me. We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services. Not to say there's not things a company can do to improve it's efficiency, but ultimately, a company isn't going to keep their factories firing away if no one is buying their stuff.…
Ah yes, what's better than trying to shift the blame from the actual people and groups doing this, to individuals, who often don't even know better? No need to address the companies or (dare I say) suggest regulations. It's the consumer who should think about this, he's the center of the market universe - besides 7 billion other centers - and only he - with the coincidental cooperation of all other 7 billion people -…
Phew, sounds like a lot of work! If only we could muster up some congregation of people that speak for many other people, so that they could speak on our behalf and tell these companies to cut the crap...
That sure sounds nice.
Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions
#7And 90% of consumers are responsible to buy from these 100 companies?
Exactly, this is the fallacy that we need "other people", like politicians to solve climate change for us. Try voting with your wallet and changing your bank.
A politician representing the interests of the people who voted for him/her is a fallacy?
Then consequentially I should get back all my tax money that went into setting up international trade and other economic deals, since apparently this should also have been my responsibility and these arrangements would have just popped up if I had 'voted with my wallet'.
Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions
#8And 90% of consumers are responsible to buy from these 100 companies?
Exactly, this is the fallacy that we need "other people", like politicians to solve climate change for us. Try voting with your wallet and changing your bank.
Ah the fallacy that we need "other people" to solve the prisoner's dilemma. Try just not ratting out your partner in crime!
Ah the fallacy that we need "other people" to solve the tragedy of the commons. Try just not grazing your cattle too much!
Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions
#9In other news, just 100 companies are responsible for making 71% of people overweight.
Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions
#10This article makes out like the companies themselves are directly responsible, rather than the customers of these companies, i.e. you and me. We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services. Not to say there's not things a company can do to improve it's efficiency, but ultimately, a company isn't going to keep their factories firing away if no one is buying their stuff.…
I agree with your argument that since consumers are the ones who demand the product, they are the reason such companies exist.
However, customers typically have little information on how many greenhouse gases are produced for a given product they buy, and especially not when it counts -- that is, in a store before a purchase -- so they cannot be reasonably expected to vote with their wallet.
One solution might be a combination of:
1) Labeling all products with the emissions that took to create them, so customers can easily vote with their wallet. Perhaps display them next to prices, perhaps with a label like Nutritional Facts on food products, or like a warning when some emissions threshold is exceeded, like smoking risks on cigarette cartons. Customers should not have to watch documentaries or do research on which companies are environmentally friendly and which aren't, but rather have that information given at purchase time.
One or both of:
2a) Subsidizing environmentally-friendly ways of production (perhaps even just for a time) so that these companies can survive against their coal-burning competitors. This way, customers voting with their wallet don't have to pay extreme prices for alternatives just because they think reducing greenhouse gases is good for the world -- with subsidies or tariffs, we could make alternatives somewhat price-competitive.
2b) Taxing goods made with too many greenhouse gases (i.e. the reverse of 2a).