Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

#31

Post by adgasf »

bamboozled wrote: post #4
folli wrote: post #2

And 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.

Actually, I think we do.

This is a free-rider problem where imposing a cost on yourself (such as using more expensive, greener alternatives, reducing consumption, etc) make almost no difference to the overall problem. We need to ensure that the vast majority make these changes.

The (simplified) payoff matrix is something like this:

----

I am green: I win

Society is green: We all win a lot

----

I am green: I lose a lot

Society is not green: We all lose a lot

----

I am not green: I win a lot

Society is green: We all win a lot

----

I am not green: I lose, but at least I have a big car

Society is not green: We all lose a lot

----

There are two ways out of the trap:

1. Innovation makes green solutions cheaper and better, such that going green is a win for the individual and for society.

2. Governments force green solutions to be the cheaper option, using laws and taxation.

Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

#32

Post by caseysoftware »

> “Our purpose is not to name and shame firms, our purpose is to provide transparency and call attention to the quite extraordinary fact that just 100 companies played a crucial role in the problem,” said Pedro Faria, technical director of the Carbon Majors Database, which collected the information for the report. “It’s obvious they have a share of responsibility in the solution.”

You made a list of the top 100 companies.. that is literally naming names.

Then you say they're responsible for 71% of the problem and need to improve.. that is literally shaming them.

For a supposedly-intelligent person, it's disappointing he doesn't know the definitions of the words he uses.

Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

#33

Post by rayiner »

daptaq wrote: post #5
jblok wrote: post #3

This 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 -…

> 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?

This isn't a situation where you're blaming someone who buys an iPhone for all the pollution Apple creates in making them. Here, the actual person "doing" the pollution is you and me, when we buy a gas-powered car and drive it dozens of miles through suburban gridlock to get to work, or leave the thermostat at 68 on a hot summer day.

And while it might be reasonable to say that an iPhone consumer has no idea what toxic crap is involved in making that seemingly innocuous product, that's absolutely not reasonable when it comes to the products made by Exxon, etc. Everyone "knows better."

Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

#34

Post by bamboozled »

adgasf wrote: post #31
bamboozled wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, I think we do. This is a free-rider problem where imposing a cost on yourself (such as using more expensive, greener alternatives, reducing consumption, etc) make almost no difference to the overall problem. We need to ensure that the vast majority make these changes. The (simplified) payoff matrix is something like this: ---- I am green: I win Society is green: We all win a lot ---- I am green: I lose a lo…

You're doing it again:

> 2. Governments force green solutions to be the cheaper option, using laws and taxation.

That's not happening, but I'm sure you've noticed. So you're better off to invest in and back the innovators with your wallet by purchasing their products and by divesting (this need to be done, actively to work), which is what I said originally.

Also there is plenty to gain from being innovative on a personal level. For example, you may perceive consuming less is a "cost" but is it really? If I consume less, I have more money (meaning I have to work less), I have less "stuff" to deal with, and I have less rubbish to throw out.

You're not giving me anything new to be honest.

Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

#35

Post by wccrawford »

devwastaken wrote: post #11
jblok wrote: post #3

This 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.…

>We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services. We do. But, what is your point there? Are you saying that individuals have the ability to group up and stop it by not buying? Because that would be true. But, there's always that problem of realism that gets in the way. In theory, yes, we could pretty much solve or do anything as humans. Does that mean its realistically p…

The article says:

>The most polluting investor-owned companies on the list are ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron

Are they trying to say that those companies pollute directly, or that they sell to people who then pollute?

Because the former is definitely the company's fault. And we should be asking them to stop that.

But the latter is entirely the responsibility of their customers. And that's us.

Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

#36

Post by akgerber »

rayiner wrote: post #33
daptaq wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 -…

> 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? This isn't a situation where you're blaming someone who buys an iPhone for all the pollution Apple creates in making them. Here, the actual person "doing" the pollution is you and me, when we buy a gas-powered car and drive it dozens of miles through suburban gridlock…

People generally don't buy Exxon's products because they're hydrocarbon aficionados— they buy them because they need to get to work and their kids need to get to school.

And they need cars and gasoline to do those things because American cities and suburbs are usually built around cars as opposed to walking, cycling, and mass transit. While that's not exclusively due to oil and car companies— desires to maintain segregation played a huge part too— they certainly played a huge part in ensuring American society was built in a way that ensured demand for their products.

Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

#37

Post by xoa »

jblok wrote: post #3

This 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.…

>We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services.

Utterly wrong under multiple criteria.

1. If you read the article you'll see a number of these companies exist in polities that are in no way representative democracies without even the genuine goal (let alone a somewhat decent implementation) of a full market system, making them insulated from even general population pressure let alone market pressure.

2. For the ones that exist in the 1st World under reasonably market-based economies, you are still wrong, because the entire point of a market economy is that the price represents that all costs, ie., no externalities. Consumers can of course factor in non-cost factors at their option, but when it comes to something like pollution everything associated should be built in and it is absolutely not the end consumers fault if some company is committing fraud by failing to deal with externalities.

It's unfortunate modern conservatives in particular have done a full 180 and grown to hate the Free Market and refuse to implement emissions pricing, but that isn't up to individuals in their role as consumers (though in a democracy it is their fault in their role as citizens if they're supporting anti-market politicians). If the price of emitting a ton of CO2 or CH4 was simply set at the price of industrially removing (within a year) a ton, then things would be sorted out from there. The vast majority of humanity needs to be involved with externally produced products and/or services to survive in the modern world, that's not some option or crime. The sticker price should be reflecting all costs so they can make appropriate comparisons and choices.

Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

#38

Post by Joe-Z »

rayiner wrote: post #33
daptaq wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 -…

> 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? This isn't a situation where you're blaming someone who buys an iPhone for all the pollution Apple creates in making them. Here, the actual person "doing" the pollution is you and me, when we buy a gas-powered car and drive it dozens of miles through suburban gridlock…

> the actual person "doing" the pollution is you and me, when we buy a gas-powered car and drive it dozens of miles through suburban gridlock to get to work, or leave the thermostat at 68 on a hot summer day

These examples demonstrate what lies in the power of the consumer and what doesn't pretty well though. Leaving the thermostat at 68 could be argued to be wasteful for the mere convenience of having it 'nice and cool'. However, I think it's in the hands of politicians to see that the energy powering the A/C unit, comes from more environmentally-friendly sources. Such a solution would certainly be a lot more reliable and sustainable than requiring every citizen to just live with the heat even though everybody knows the cool air of the A/C is just one button press away.

Similarly for your other example of driving through the suburban gridlock. I guess nobody wishes for traffic jams and long commutes through concrete deserts. However, people just use the existing infrastructure. What would be the alternative? Live closer to the city center, which probably results in much higher cost of living. Or not going to the city center every day, which would require having a (compared to most) very flexible job.

These are issues that need to be solved on a political level and not by simply expecting everyone to 'do the right thing' (in this case meaning, to behave more environmentally friendly), while at the same time knowing that this often comes with a financial or quality-of-life cost that most people are not willing to bear.

EDIT: typos

Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

#39

Post by bamboozled »

delazeur wrote: post #25
bamboozled wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said that, but the majority of adults are responsible for this mess including the representatives they've elected. This includes you and me.

> I never said that Perhaps that isn't what you meant , but it sure looks to me like that's what you said .

Relying on someone else to fix it won't fix it, is essentially what I'm saying, for if everyone had that attitude, then nothing would happen, absolutely nothing.

Politicians are just people too.

Re: 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

#40

Post by fakesmoke »

There's a really scary picture of a power plant leading off the story. There is a huge amount of smoke pouring out of its smoke stacks.

Only, most of the smoke stacks are chillers and most of all that smoke is steam. The chillers looks like the kind most often associated with nuclear power plants.

If you took all those emissions and photoshopped away all the H2O, you'd have a very small wisp of smoke. That smoke would still be a problem. But the photo would not inspire fear and concern.

When an article leads off with that kind of spurious fearmongering, it damages any real value that might exist later in the article. Any real data and real concerns get obscured in all the fake smoke the article is purposely generating.

Post reply on HN