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

51–60 of 66 posts

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

#51

Post by harryh »

winter_blue wrote: post #28

I looked at the report[1], and pretty much all of the companies listed are energy companies (e.g. coal/petroleum/etc). I was expecting to see a lot of heavy industrial manufacturing companies. I can understand a coal plant producing a lot of emissions, but I'm wondering: why would a petroleum company generate a lot of emissions? Do they burn a lot of the fuel they produce? I thought they just pump the crude oil out,…

They're not just counting the emissions that Exxon (for example) produces by extracting oil. They're counting the emissions from when that oil is burned by the end consumer (say by me in a car) and accounting that back to Exxon.

Yes, this is kinda dumb.

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

#52

Post by undersuit »

jblok wrote: post #20
devwastaken wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I get all of that. You're spot on. My point was just addressing the main theme of the article which is trying to make out that if we just got rid of these companies, we'd cut emissions by 71%. Well yeh sure, but then the world wouldn't continue to function as normal. As individuals, we have the same methods as we always have. Don't drive when you can walk, use renewable energy, get an electric car, shop local, etc. A…

>the main theme of the article which is trying to make out that if we just got rid of these companies

That's the second time you've said that. What article are you reading?

The one I'm reading from this thread says: “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.”

I think that last sentence is key. These 100 companies are profiting off of creating the majority of the problem, some even maliciously. Does levying responsibility upon these companies necessitate their destruction?

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

#53

Post by undersuit »

wccrawford wrote: post #35
devwastaken wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

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

The companies are selling polluting materials, every single one of them is a producer of fossil fuels. Can you really sell a customer a gallon of gas and then blame them for the pollution when burning it?

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

#54

Post by undersuit »

harryh wrote: post #51
winter_blue wrote: post #28

I looked at the report[1], and pretty much all of the companies listed are energy companies (e.g. coal/petroleum/etc). I was expecting to see a lot of heavy industrial manufacturing companies. I can understand a coal plant producing a lot of emissions, but I'm wondering: why would a petroleum company generate a lot of emissions? Do they burn a lot of the fuel they produce? I thought they just pump the crude oil out,…

They're not just counting the emissions that Exxon (for example) produces by extracting oil. They're counting the emissions from when that oil is burned by the end consumer (say by me in a car) and accounting that back to Exxon. Yes, this is kinda dumb.

Why is it dumb? Purposely selling a product that pollutes and wanting to shift all the blame to the customer sounds dumb to me. They aren't selling paper weights.

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

#55

Post by rayiner »

stevedt wrote: post #47
rayiner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isolated anecdotes aside, oil companies had very little to do with how American cities are designed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... Auto, tire and oil companies had an affect in some places.

The poster I was replying to didn't say these companies merely "had an affect in some places." He suggested that they were the dominant reason for and "played a huge part" in how American cities were designed. Then handful of examples you point to do not suggest that these companies even moved the needle in how cities were designed.

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

#56

Post by [deleted] »

undersuit wrote: post #54
harryh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not just counting the emissions that Exxon (for example) produces by extracting oil. They're counting the emissions from when that oil is burned by the end consumer (say by me in a car) and accounting that back to Exxon. Yes, this is kinda dumb.

Why is it dumb? Purposely selling a product that pollutes and wanting to shift all the blame to the customer sounds dumb to me. They aren't selling paper weights.

[deleted]

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

#57

Post by harryh »

undersuit wrote: post #54
harryh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not just counting the emissions that Exxon (for example) produces by extracting oil. They're counting the emissions from when that oil is burned by the end consumer (say by me in a car) and accounting that back to Exxon. Yes, this is kinda dumb.

Why is it dumb? Purposely selling a product that pollutes and wanting to shift all the blame to the customer sounds dumb to me. They aren't selling paper weights.

If people stopped wanting to burn hydrocarbons for energy all of these companies would stop digging it up from the ground.

Conversely, if all of these companies were suddenly shut down 100 new ones would rise up in their place to replace them.

Demand drives consumption.

Writing a report about how 71% of emissions come from 100 companies doesn't convey meaningful information to the reader about the nature of the problem of global warming.

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

#58

Post by wccrawford »

undersuit wrote: post #53
wccrawford wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Are they trying to say that those companies pollute directly, or that they sell to people who then pollute? The companies are selling polluting materials, every single one of them is a producer of fossil fuels. Can you really sell a customer a gallon of gas and then blame them for the pollution when burning it?

Yes. Absolutely.

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

#59

Post by undersuit »

harryh wrote: post #57
undersuit wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it dumb? Purposely selling a product that pollutes and wanting to shift all the blame to the customer sounds dumb to me. They aren't selling paper weights.

If people stopped wanting to burn hydrocarbons for energy all of these companies would stop digging it up from the ground. Conversely, if all of these companies were suddenly shut down 100 new ones would rise up in their place to replace them. Demand drives consumption. Writing a report about how 71% of emissions come from 100 companies doesn't convey meaningful information to the reader about the nature of the probl…

People don't want to burn hydrocarbons for energy they just want energy. The proof is in the pudding, if people wanted to burn hydrocarbons for energy there would be no renewable energy sources.

Demand for energy drives a consumption for energy and these companies provide the energy. If we had instead learned how to convert puppies to energy in the late 19th century instead of fossil fuels, we'd probably be burning puppies.

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

#60

Post by harryh »

undersuit wrote: post #59
harryh wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people stopped wanting to burn hydrocarbons for energy all of these companies would stop digging it up from the ground. Conversely, if all of these companies were suddenly shut down 100 new ones would rise up in their place to replace them. Demand drives consumption. Writing a report about how 71% of emissions come from 100 companies doesn't convey meaningful information to the reader about the nature of the probl…

People don't want to burn hydrocarbons for energy they just want energy. The proof is in the pudding, if people wanted to burn hydrocarbons for energy there would be no renewable energy sources. Demand for energy drives a consumption for energy and these companies provide the energy. If we had instead learned how to convert puppies to energy in the late 19th century instead of fossil fuels, we'd probably be burning p…

Yes, but we don't know how to convert puppies into energy. Hydrocarbons are (mostly) what we have so hydrocarbons are (mostly) what we get.
Post reply on HN