Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions

Discussion in 'Economics' started by Sprout, Oct 9, 2018.

  1. Sprout

    Sprout

    "The Carbon Majors Report (pdf) “pinpoints how a relatively small set of fossil fuel producers may hold the key to systemic change on carbon emissions,” says Pedro Faria, technical director at environmental non-profit CDP, which published the report in collaboration with the Climate Accountability Institute.

    Traditionally, large scale greenhouse gas emissions data is collected at a national level but this report focuses on fossil fuel producers. Compiled from a database of publicly available emissions figures, it is intended as the first in a series of publications to highlight the role companies and their investors could play in tackling climate change.

    The report found that more than half of global industrial emissions since 1988 – the year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established – can be traced to just 25 corporate and state-owned entities. The scale of historical emissions associated with these fossil fuel producers is large enough to have contributed significantly to climate change, according to the report.

    ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron are identified as among the highest emitting investor-owned companies since 1988. If fossil fuels continue to be extracted at the same rate over the next 28 years as they were between 1988 and 2017, says the report, global average temperatures would be on course to rise by 4C by the end of the century. This is likely to have catastrophic consequences including substantial species extinction and global food scarcity risks.

    While companies have a huge role to play in driving climate change, says Faria, the barrier is the “absolute tension” between short-term profitability and the urgent need to reduce emissions.


    A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be worthless in the face of international action on climate change and advances in renewables – in turn posing substantial threats to investor returns.

    CDP says its aims with the carbon majors project are both to improve transparency among fossil fuel producers and to help investors understand the emissions associated with their fossil fuel holdings.

    A fifth of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions are backed by public investment, according to the report. “That puts a significant responsibility on those investors to engage with carbon majors and urge them to disclose climate risk,” says Faria.

    Investors should move out of fossil fuels, says Michael Brune, executive director of US environmental organisation the Sierra Club. “Not only is it morally risky, it’s economically risky. The world is moving away from fossil fuels towards clean energy and is doing so at an accelerated pace. Those left holding investments in fossil fuel companies will find their investments becoming more and more risky over time.”

    There is a “growing wave of companies that are acting in the opposite manner to the companies in this report,” says Brune. Nearly 100 companies including Apple, Facebook, Google and Ikea have committed to 100% renewable power under the RE100 initiative. Volvo recently announced that all its cars would be electric or hybrid from 2019.


    And oil and gas companies are also embarking on green investments. Shell set up a renewables arm in 2015 with a $1.7bn investment attached and a spokesperson for Chevron says it’s “committed to managing its [greenhouse gas] emissions” and is investing in two of the world’s largest carbon dioxide injection projects to capture and store carbon. A BP spokesperson says its “determined to be part of the solution” for climate change and is “investing in renewables and low-carbon innovation.” And ExxonMobil, which has faced heavy criticism for its environmental record, has been exploring carbon capture and storage.

    But for many the sums involved and pace of change are nowhere near enough. A research paper published last year by Paul Stevens, an academic at think tank Chatham House, said international oil companies were no longer fit for purpose and warned these multinationals that they faced a “nasty, brutish and short” end within the next 10 years if they did not completely change their business models.

    Investors now have a choice, according to Charlie Kronick, senior programme advisor at Greenpeace UK. “The future of the oil industry has already been written: the choice is will its decline be managed, returning capital to shareholders to be reinvested in the genuine industries of the future, or will they hold on, hoping not be the last one standing when the music stops?”
    "

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...ons-cdp-study-climate-change?CMP=share_btn_fb
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    dealmaker likes this.
  2. Sprout

    Sprout

  3. dozu888

    dozu888

    here we go again... had some long discussion with someone a few weeks ago here.. and just had to educate a friend today..

    if you gather all the man-made CO2, and make a huge ping-pong ball (with the shell made of this pure CO2) to cover the earth, what is the thickness of the shell of this pingpong ball?
     
  4. Here4money

    Here4money

    Thick enough to let sun rays in but not out? How thick is the tint in your vehicle? In your welding hood?
     
    Lou Friedman likes this.
  5. Sprout

    Sprout

    dozu888,

    Please take your 2+2=5 logic somewhere else. Everything you've said has been refuted with sound science, links and references.

    You're a troll for the fossil fuel industry spreading disinformation.

    As you persist, more and more folks just put you on ignore. There is no longer any debate other than your manufactured arguments for the sake of argument with no logical follow through as you keep repeating the same nonsense ad nauseam from an inflated sense of self-importance.

    Go hang out with the flat-earthers in which you have much more in common.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
  6. Here4money

    Here4money

    electromagnetic radiation and wavelengths....how do they work?
     
  7. Banjo

    Banjo

  8. jasonc

    jasonc

    I do want to improve the environment but I think articles like this obscure the truth and allow us as individuals to push off responsibility. Those are all the oil and energy companies that are used in all our products or to generate the electricity used by billions of people and all companies so it isnt really "Only 100" companies that are causing these emissions.

    If global warming is true and not fixed it will have huge permanent impact on the world, if we wrongly stop it we waste a bit of money and have cleaner air and water anyway. Lets help the environment.
     
  9. dozu888

    dozu888

    fact: human CO2 is 3% of all CO2;
    fact: take all the human CO2 and form a sphere around the earth, the skin of that sphere is 2 inches thick.
    fact: Al Gore made $300m from this scam;
    fact: money knows the truth, insurance companies, RE developers, and most importantly buyers have pushed coastal property prices thru the roof. NYC, SF, Shanghai, Hongkong you name it.. despite the claim that sea level rise will cover miles inland of the coast lines.

    people... think.

    independent thinking is critical. for trading, and for life.
     
  10. Sprout

    Sprout

    More 2+2=5 disinformation from dozu88 Ad nauseam, so easily refuted with actual facts:

    Climate myths: Human CO2emissions are too tiny to matter

    1) https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

    What is the bias of New Scientist?
    2) https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-scientist/


    If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?

    3) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/

    What is Scientific American's Bias?

    4) https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/scientific-american/


    What is the bias of mediabiasfactcheck?

    5) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check


    Current state of lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry

    6) https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...n-children-california-cities-attorney-general


    Global warming and hurricanes

    7) https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/


    North Carolina legislature dozu88's tribe:
    8) In 2012, it enacted a law … that essentially outlawed the report and barred state officials from using its findings to make coastal development decisions. It was a big win for wealthy real estate developers and 9) for conservative voters of the 2009-10 tea party movement that had embraced the uniquely American notion that climate science is a liberal hoax.

    Speaking by telephone Monday from his campus office in Greenville, N.C. — a city that was 10) inundated with up to six feet of water in 1999's Hurricane Floyd and now sits directly in the path of Florence — Riggs told me how North Carolina "had a plan to deal with sea level and climate change, but they took it off the table and pulled the rug out from under the scientific panel."

    11) http://www2.philly.com/philly/colum...lina-climate-change-politicians-20180911.html


    Most recent Real Estate damage estimates of Hurricane Florence on the Carolina's

    12) https://www.forbes.com/sites/alyyal...mage-and-not-just-to-the-coasts/#5191b86dfd70


    Let's see what the Insurance industry has to say

    13) https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/06/21/493040.htm


    If you are not a human parrot, whom continues to embarrass yourself,
    then refute each reference by outline number please.

    If you really have the capacity for critical thinking and intelligent dialog, then let's see what sources you come up with, if any.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
    #10     Oct 10, 2018