There is less kerosene burned in all aviation in the world than is used in lamps and cookstoves in Africa and Asia. Aviation is really not the driver of climate change. Of all transport emissions aviation is 8% (in the US). 80% is cars and trucks.
Moreover, the aviation industry has a profit motive to reduce emissions because ever gallon of jet fuel saved is money saved.
The same applies to shipping (11% of global emissions), modern container ships are so fucking massive and slower than some wooden sailing ships from the 19th century because efficiency is the only real way they can make more money.
Fuel burned near the stratosphere contributes several times more towards global warming than regular stoves. We don’t need 70% of all flights while africa needs fuel to survive.
The average person isn’t wrecking the environment for no reason either, and yet they always appear to be the target for “environmental sustainability” snipes presented by mainstream media as fact. There are an innumerable number of practices that large industries can practice to limit their carbon footprint, but it is never a priority.
yes i think this goes both ways, both producers and consumers should be responsible. but we shouldn't forget shell wouldn't continue selling gas and instead shift their operations if gas wasn't in such a demand.
also if you're littering you can't blame corporations for that lmao
Public transport probably isn’t a viable option in some cases, so I’m hoping EVs do catch on for this reason. Reducing or eliminating meat consumption, or at least finding more sustainable ways to provide it (i.e. lab-grown meat) also would definitely play a significant role. I am not advocating for eliminating all responsibility from the consumer side
your statement is highly dependent on where someone lives. I wonder what percent of people live within about ten minutes’ walking distance from useful public transportation. I bet it’s not 90% or even anywhere close. most people on Earth do live in cities now though, so maybe it’s ~50%…?
The thing about big companies like oil companies is that they’ll do anything they can to prevent alternatives from taking hold. Often it involves lobbying or spreading disinformation to fight against renewable energy for example. Car makers also fight public transportation.
I like the whole "save water" bullshit. like in california. Or anywhere else being fed by lake mead. Like, "You need to take shorter showers! conserve water". the ten minute shower they're berating consumers for... is literally nothing compared to the water straight up wasted for California's agriculture. (and by wasted, I mean water lost before it even gets to the plants.)
Most of Lake Mead and the Colorado River aren't used by people. it's used by corporations that don't give two shits because nobody gives a damn about them wasting water- can't harm the jobs, now.
I mean yeah for a whole host of reason we should shut down animal agriculture. But until we can make that happen people shouldn't support it. People don't support it for no reason but they do almost always support it for bad reasons like habit/tradition and sensory pleasure
Private companies aren’t going to do the right thing just for the sake of it, because any moral sacrifice on their part will give ground to other companies that won’t do the right thing. It has to be fixed through regulation, ushered in through representatives elected by average people.
But most average people don’t care. They want lower taxes and cheaper gas.
It's largely a problem of government that is exacerbated by the influence of the businesses themselves. It's the governments job to enact policy change that force business to address these issues and develop more sustainable production process and product offerings, but since the government has essentially been bought out by those same businesses, nothing happens at all.
We can't decouple business from government without policy changes that would place limitations on such influence, and we cannot enact those policies because of the influence from businesses. I don't see a solution unless people wise up and elect a lot of people in the same election cycle not beholden to these groups, but I don't know how that can be accomplished.
Exactly. Saudi Aramco is wrecking the environment because (among others) Dow Chemical keeps buying their oil. Dow Chemical keeps buying their oil because Sterilite keeps buying the plastic that Dow makes. Sterilite keeps buying Dow’s plastic because people keep buying Sterilite bins to store all their junk. Ultimately if there wasn’t a person consuming things at the end of the chain, the oil wouldn’t be removed from the ground in the first place.
Ultimately it all comes down to people’s lifestyles. When you buy something that’s made of plastic or transported on a container ship, you’re giving these companies money they use to wreck the environment. If instead of kiwi fruit, you buy melons from an Amish farmer who brought them to market using a horse-drawn carriage, that lifestyle choice has an impact on the environment.
Having said that, it’s true that companies use lobbying to twist laws in their favour, and use sales and marketing to drive demand for their products. It’s hard to know whether a product you’re buying is damaging to the environment because the companies that damage the environment don’t want you to know and will oppose any law that makes it clearer. It’s hard to choose to purchase a less environmentally destructive item if you don’t know it exists.
But, it’s just ridiculous bullshit to pretend that nefarious companies are out there burning coal just for fun, while cackling evilly. Everything companies do is in service to making money, and virtually the only way they make money is to sell things that people want to buy.
Yes, the US has abysmal public transport (at least in houston, tx in my case) compared to even third world countries like Egypt. It’s downright embarrassing.
I live inside the 275 loop around Cincinnati. My work is 11 miles away. In order to get to work via public transit I’d have to walk 3.5 miles to the closest bus stop, take a bus the wrong direction, wait for a transfer to another bus heading closer to work, and then walk 2.5 miles to my job. The schedule is so sparse it would take me 3-4 hrs one way and I’d be walking more than half of it. No bike lanes or sidewalks either, and the roads are so dangerous that in almost 20 years of working there I’ve never seen a bike attempt any of my possible routes. I have seen memorial bikes on the roadside where someone got hit.
Next problem is surge pricing and general ticket prices. I recall one city I was living in a few years back having advertisements for taking the train. And I was like “Yeah sure. It’s just double the price and triple the time”.
To me taking the train (at least for long distances) is a luxury thing.
Ok. If you don’t? There’s still countless aspects of your life that you interact through the economy to fulfill that have the potential for change and improvement.
Still buy new clothes from Old Navy or JCPenney? Maybe think about going to your nearest GoodWill or local thrift shop(s) (and on a regular basis) to see what gems pass by now and again. College towns right after the end of the semester are ripe for this, and I would wager that you have a college town somewhat closer to you than any kind of public transit. Not saying that you have to do this for your entire wardrobe, but choosing used over new means that resources are avoided in making that new garment, such as all of the fuels needed to move resources to and from each factory along the value chain, all of the solid waste destined for landfill or incineration from the scraps of cutting-and-sewing that new garment, all of the water pollution associated with dyeing or printing your new garment, or the potential human rights violations that could pop up throughout the value chain. A lot of these can be mitigated by buying more sustainable brands that seek to minimize these things, but a cheaper alternative is to buy used too.
Still have an air conditioner? Maybe think about hooking up a smart thermostat or equivalent and enrolling in peak-load demand response initiatives so that your AC or furnace works a little less hard in exchange for the entire grid not having to provide as much power (the alternative is blackouts or brownouts where everyone turns their AC on blast but kills the grid so no one has power anymore). Doing this means that demand curves by customers don’t reach as high of historical peaks, which allows utilities to avoid using peak response assets like Combined Cycle Combustion Plants that use natural gas to operate. You in turn create a greener grid, that’s also better for the climate. And if having a warmer house isn’t enough for you, there are other ways of mitigating this, like setting up phase-changers directly to your bedroom so that it stays cool, unlike the rest of the house, or buying ice vests that you can wear on your person, or going to a public facility like a library or mall and centralizing cooling loads to there instead of decentralized cooling loads via everyone’s homes.
How old are your assets like cars, AC units, furnaces, fridges, etc.? Perhaps if it doesn’t break the bank, look into purchasing models that are more efficient, as in those cars that have better mileage and/or that are hybrids and can be plugged in to a normal outlet to charge, or fridges and AC units that use coolants better and that have better insulation to keep things cooler for longer. These choices don’t necessarily have to be accompanied by the insane bits of technology and information that bigger companies want to shove down our throats with these newer, smarter devices.
Does your local grocery store carry organic goods as opposed to conventional ones? I know that ALDI near me carry those, and I’ve had to shop there for years thanks to the low prices they offer. If you minimize your costs while still going organic, maybe consider shifting your diet away from red meat and pork towards other options like chicken, fish, or straight up whole food, plant-based ingredients like vegetables, fruit, legumes, grains, nuts, seeds, mushrooms, etc. Or, if you’ve gone that far, have you considered seeking out local farmer’s markets near you that often offer these goods both organically (or “organically” since the official label is so expensive), in season, AND locally. A good resource for finding farmer’s markets near you is www.localharvest.org.
Getting back to the public transit problem you bring up:
Is there public transit near you? Do you know for sure? Most major cities like Houston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and even the smaller ones like Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, etc. do have some version of public transit, whether that’s via subway, rail, tram, or bus, so perhaps there are more options near you thank you might think. And do you use these when you have the opportunity to? All of these services are offered via companies that use metrics like ridership and rider time to gauge how they might want to invest in these services into the future. If you start engaging with more and more public transit when you can, every human adds up on their balance sheets and can impact what happens with public transit in the future. I know that in my area, the public transit corp running our interurban train is constructing a new service line South, when it traditionally only extended East & West, which will capture an even larger portion of the market and make the service even more financially lucrative over time, leading to even more expansion and coverage. But I do agree with you on the lack of other interurban solutions like Amtrak. That service is downright terrible, and we as a country (assuming you live in the US) need to start demanding better service, as well as less of a grip on the railway network in this country by the railroad tycoons.
There are changes that can be made all around us that involve the economy and a corporation on the other side. All of the above examples I listed do. There are two sides to the economy, that economists tell us: Supply and Demand. Just because we can’t control supply outside of efforts like political action doesn’t mean we can’t control demand too. Little changes that every common person makes over time one way or another add up and show up on these corporations’ balance sheets.
Hope is not lost. Stay focused on sustainability and making what changes you can make in your life right now and into the future, including political action. All of this adds up.
Short-term catastrophes don’t negate long-term habit changes though. That oil spill doesn’t impact all water bodies across the entire planet at the same time. While I think more developed nations should introduce more punishments to prevent things like this from happening, we have technologies that can mitigate these things once they do happen.
Progress may be up and down, but as long as the slope trends upwards, it’s better than nothing.
Message stays the same: do as much as you can when you can in the specific ways you can.
I’m saying that the scale of individual effect to corporate producer effect is so large that your individual responsibility even pushed to it’s maximum will have zero meaningful impact. Not just that, but the combined individual responsibility of the majority of citizens is not something you can magic into existance especially when most are too poor to seek or have access to alternatives.
To give you an idea of the scale, the ~90,000 container ships that are transporting daily use twice the amount of fuel as the ~1,450,000,000 cars on the road globally. You could make every single land based personal vehicle in the world use zero fuel, and only remove 30% of the global fuel usage. Keep in mind that includes land based commercial transport, and doesn’t even touch aircraft.
Plastics make up 4% of global oil use, you not using products because they were made with single use plastics doesn’t stop them being made, but if it did, would still account for just about nothing.
Do you think people use planes for fun? Only way I can see my family is by plane. Well, I can go by ferry but that means I will have to spend about 20x money and it'll take about 48 hours on the ferry, instead of 1.5 hours on the plane.
"We should use planes less" is not "you mustn't use planes ever". Not every plane journey can easily be replaced. That's okay. Near me there's a flight that takes off to go a few hundred miles to the country's capital each morning, and there are similar ones going much shorter distances all over the country. That journey could and should be a high speed train journey with suitable infrastructure
You always get this kind of outrage when you tell people to do anything less. Eat less meat: How dare you tell me I cannot eat meat! I work hard every day at the blue collar job and all I want to do is to come home to a nice steak!
The amount of mental gymnastics people go through to not even consider veganism is so astounding. Morality aside, cutting all animal products would do so much good for the environment.
I'm sorry but telling people not to is a stupid and futile plan. At least here in the US (idk if anywhere else does this) I say we need to regulate the airlines to run those "unprofitable" flights as they do now, but without the subsidy money. The airlines, being unable to change the frequency or cost of those flights, will turn to the obvious solution: make flying more expensive across the board to subsidize those actually unprofitable but regulated routes. I put unprofitable in quotes earlier because that's the excuse the corps will cry with; their cries mean nothing though. Raising the cost of air travel will reduce demand and will also free up lots of tax dollars for better causes, at least one hopes lmao. Same thing for meat; telling people to go vegan/vegetarian won't work. Ceasing subsidization and increasing regulations (e.g. forcing more humane living standards for the animals) will raise prices letting the market do it's thing which is the best we can really do given the current economic structure of our society. This myth of "personal responsibility" in cases like this is harmful because people's actions are defined by systems, institutions and society at large.
I agree with the general prescription, but cultivating a sense of personal responsibility is useful for the moment when harsh regulations are going to be set in place. Voters are far more likely to agree with high carbon taxes if they have already started to try reducing their emissions.
I’m definitely not defending the stance of liberal media on this: climate change isn’t an issue of personal responsibility, but personal responsibility should be promoted on top of systemic change. I’m not telling anyone to live the life of a Tibetan monk, but to put some effort into having virtuous decisions and habits, leading by example, and also use that to claim: “We are doing our part already, but capitalism cannot fix the problem”.
Reducing the discussion to “actually, it’s corporations only which should change how they work” is going to lead to a pretty large reactionary backslash when people find out that a sustainable economy does also, in fact, require to change our relation with the economy.
This is one of the most shittiest takes I've ever seen, trying to absolve oneselves of taking responsibility.
Yeah, there are those companies that produce the bad shit but this tweet is right. If you stop eating meat, the companies that produce meat will produce less of it and there will be a real impact.
I don't know what the fuck the OP is thinking. Like, do they think that the corporations just produce pollution for fun? No, it's because you buy that shit. If you stop buying that shit, pollution will go down. CNN was 100% right and that fucker that responded is retarded at best, but probably just braindead because what he posted doesn't make sense at all.
Not all changes are an improvement, but all improvements are a change. That applies to both our lifestyles, especially in rich countries, and corporations, what they do and how they operate.
Animal agriculture is the most obvious example to me, it's unjusifiable ethically let alone environmentally so no matter what people are gonna have to stop eating animals and their secretions, and most people can stop pretty easily and eat healthily (it's extremely easy to do better than the SAD) so start now and get ahead of the curve
Yeah this is where taxing these negative externalities would help to curb the demand of wasteful products and thus lower waste produced by corporations.
We can’t expect corporations to just do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts, because the products would cost more and the masses would just purchase the cheaper more waste producing products. We need to level the playing field by taxing pollution and waste.
Carbon tax and zoning reform. A tax won’t actually succeed in reducing demand if people continue to be forced to drive everywhere because their destinations are too far apart.
Very true. Especially in the US and Australia. On the other hand, increased cost for transportation would create a lot of pressure on individual transport that should lead to more demand for public transport. The effect would probably be slower than a zoning reform
Stop buying what shit? Everything? Corporations lobby for policies that save them money at the cost of our environment. Yes there are things individual people can do to help but posts like this one from CNN shift the focus from the actual problem
There is the caveat of business practices which are often unknown to the consumer—think of all the times businesses have been busted and then(temporarily) boycotted for it. But, yeah, consumers consume and should be well aware of their consumption.
Bro the big oil corporations spent decades at the beginning of the 20th century creating and forcing the demand and dependency on oil. Watch “How Big Oil Conquered the World” from James Corbett.
It’s not like WE chose this to be the way things are. The people who control industry, and marketing, and media and THE GOVERNMENT, all MADE us and it all this way.
Re read what he wrote. He said without including that or some form of. For example, Elon put a larger carbon footprint into the world in one week with his jet than most of us will over the course our lifetime. Does it mean we shouldn’t do our part? No. We definitely need to do and be better. It would take only a few of the biggest contributors to make a big impact while it would take thousands, if not millions, of us.
I’d use my ebike, but that shit will get stolen as soon as I leave it anywhere, and I cannot afford the $3,000 to replace it. So if I am actually going places, I have to drive my vehicle.
It gets you from point A to B, costs nearly nothing to charge, and is environmentally friendly.
Why waste money on a electric alternative of a transportation device that was made to both make you do excercise AND to get you places?
It gets you there faster and without sweating. My eBike goes 50KPH. I arrive at my destination with no sweat.
If you want to get places faster, or just showoff on two wheels, that’s what motorbikes are for.
I’m sorry, but you’re being very ignorant. A motorbike is thousands of dollars, requires hundreds of dollars per month in insurance, requires licenses, maintenance, fuel, etc.
Not to mention not everyone can ride a standard bike. Older people, people with chronic illnesses, etc. I personally had a double lung transplant. I’m not pedal biking, nor am I paying $750/month for motorbike insurance in my province.
I love biking but there are times where I need to get somewhere across town and I don’t feel like pedaling there and back.
In my town there are lots of inexpensive and rentable e-bikes. Very easy to use, not overly powerful or noisy. I see lots of people using them to go out or commute.
I’d like to get one of my own because the rentable ones have zero shock absorption.
There are different kinds of ebikes but many don’t eliminate your effort, they just multiple it. They can be particularly helpful when going uphill to make it feel a bit more like you’re peddling up flat ground. The fact that they’re overall quieter and lighter weight means you can access bicycle lanes and multi-use pathways. Operating costs are also drastically lower than motorcycles.
Canada is already doing that. What do you mean you cannot afford a 1.8 million dollar crack shack and $15 loaf of bread? Probably because you don’t want to work at a call center for $15 per hour. Oh, and our requirements are that you have 3 college or university degrees, btw! (actual job application and requirements)
This reply misunderstands the fundamentals of market economics. If we, the consumers, start making the global climate more of a factor in our purchasing decisions, that will directly affect what gets produced in a capitalist system. Not trying to absolve these corporations of responsibility for the problems they’ve caused, just saying that if enough people start taking the bus/train instead of driving or substituting meats for plant based foods, we can have a significant impact. Of course the best thing we can do is vote to get ignorant climate science deniers out of office.
Choosing what to buy is a luxury most people don’t have. Companies need to be forced into changing because the market proves time and time again that it can’t regulate itself
Chosing to eat chicken instead of beef impacts the whole chain from fertilizer to animal feed to clearing the Amazon for pasture to methane produced by cows.
You have more choice than you think, like which meat to pick or to use more eggs and cheese as replacement instead. This is just one of the obvious everyday choices. Not all fish is equal too, with sustainable aquaculture being the best choice for the world.
If the oil majors, or just one of them switch off the taps tomorrow we will just get Russian gas crisis x10 and make OPEC and friends insanely rich. We need to transition to something else, that’s for sure, but blaming them for everything is super naive.
In order to make an actual impact on the environment, we’d need to all go back to living without electricity in stone houses. Everyone in the world could take the bus and it would do fuck all. Society needs to change how we produce energy and how we construct things. That’s stuff consumers cant do by changing their habits.
This Video is badly researched and the worst you could accuse Kurzgesagt is that they have sloppy research on sponsored Videos. Which in my opinion is also not correct.
the worst you could accuse Kurzgesagt is that they have sloppy research on sponsored Videos
Oh boy. If you think that’s the worst thing you can accuse Kurzgesagt of you must have entirely missed the whole Coffee Break drama, where not only did Kurzgesagt reveal himself to be a complete dishonest arsehole in his private commications with Coffee Break, he also stood by while a whole heap of his fellow large creators sicced their audiences on a small-time creator who was putting out really interesting stuff.
Plus, unrelated to all of that, his former business partners at Standard/Nebula do not have positive things to say about how he completed himself there. Supposedly he and CGP Grey saw Standard as a way for those of them who got in early to essentially leech off of the newer creators as Standard expanded, and when the other creators wanted to keep expanding it in a way that way mutually beneficial to all, those two creators tried to shut down the whole thing. It only survived because the others agreed to buy them out.
The video does not “debunk” kurzgesagt" but disagrees with who to blame. It’s the same conundrum that is happening in this thread. When telling individuals to do what they can to protect the environment you aren’t telling them that they alone are responsible. I don’t understand how people so regularly make this jump.
The issue with that logic, voting with your money, which I once used as well, is that richer people get more of a vote than poor people. And as a bunch of the issues with global warming didn’t really hit rich people, we shouldn’t depend on them to fix it.
Can’t buy what doesn’t exist, can’t buy a healthier option if one isn’t produced, can’t buy a more sustainable product if one isn’t produced, can’t buy a solar powered utility vehicle if one isn’t produced, can’t buy wind power if it isn’t produced, can’t buy items without single use packaging unless they’re produced.
Needs and wants may drive a market, but nothing is consumed before production.
IIRC the study that the “X% of companies are responsible for X% emissions” is somewhat misleading. For example they use the combined output of everyone’s car exhaust and attribute that to the major oil companies since they provide the gas. Not saying that large corporations and the wealthy in general contributing to climate change exponentially more than the average person, but its misleading to say that as an individual it doesn’t matter if we try to use less energy.
This exactly! We need to go after the corporations with policy changes but that doesn’t mean that we, as individuals, are completely blameless or that individually actions are inconsequential. If nobody chooses to drive less or to take the bus then collectively we’re telling the major oil companies to continue with business as usual at if nothing’s wrong. The corporations are to blame but we’re all active participants!
For a big majority of people, there isn’t simply a lot of options, or any options at all, to take the car less, or buy less over packaged items, or reduce the pollution footprint.
The corporations won’t offer any alternative unless legislations make these alternatives the right choice business wise.
So toothless legislation is a problem and the governing bodies absolutely have the lion share of responsibilities and the personal efforts are worthless without the support of the governing bodies.
Well I myself have a problem with this blaming game going on. Big corporations say they do their best and try to make people feel guilty about their lifestyle choices. People say they have no alternative and that anyway it’s mostly big corporations who are responsible. Politics say whatever they need to get elected. As long as everyone keeps doing what they do, blaming someone else and finding excuses for not changing how they run their household, corporation ou party, nothing will change. Everyone is responsible. How much I am responsible compared to you, or compared to ExxonMobil’s CEO, is becoming more and more irrelevant.
On the topic of what we do though, campaigning for actually effective legislation 1) actually works, and 2) has a far greater effect than trying to micro-optimize our individual lives. Optimization problems are solved by gathering data and focusing on the largest contributor, not just picking shit randomly.
Also, make no mistake, enacting a carbon tax, for example, would make all of our lives harder, we simply wouldn’t be able to afford as much stuff as we do now. But it would align the market forces to find efficient, low-carbon solutions, as opposed to find efficient solutions despite carbon emissions. Trickle-down economics is bullshit when it comes to rewards, but no company (that stays in business) ever shied away from passing along operating costs. (A similar thing happened to nutrient labeling, the food industry fought tooth and nail against it because it would be a downturn in the business, but it was ratified anyway and since then options across the board got a lot healthier, because there was simply an incentive for the corpos to fix their shit to some degree where there previously wasn’t. And that was just about informing consumers, not fully ) So don’t make this out as if we’re just pointing the blame so you can sit back and let the big companies do all the work, because that’s not what this is about, it’s simply about the fact that capitalism doesn’t run on morals (as it is so clearly apparent in its results) so we need a little more than that to force the corpos to work along with the rest of us. Because if they don’t, all our efforts will be in vain.
The point is, regulation would actually work. We tried to make climate change the individual’s responsibility for decades and we’re still barreling straight towards the climate apocalypse, so it’s time to add some other measures too, not just try to slightly increase individual contributions and see if that solves it. Spoiler: it won’t, but it’s comfy to some high-ranking execs if we waste valuable quarters trying that again and again and again. And I guess it gives us a comfy delusion of control too.
Yeah where I live, there’s a bus every 2 hours that needs ~30 minutes to get to where I work. If I took that, I’d have to walk an additional 15 minutes to my actual workplace and I’d still be an hour too early.
And after work, I’d have to again walk 15 minutes to the bus stop and wait another 30 minutes for the bus home.
So between leaving my house and coming back home, there’d be ~11.5 hours. When I use my car, that’s ~9.5 hours.
My old job was located out of the city and the times I worked there were no busses running (4am til whenever we were done) so I drove ~30 minutes to work, then work between 12 to 14 hours then drive back, which can take between 30 minutes to an hour if there was an accident. Then only being able to sleep like 3 hours a night then repeat the process was torture.
I’m so glad I was able to get a remote job where now I actually have time during my work days to do other things like actually go to gym everyday and be able to see my family more rather than just work and sleep.
It’s not actually about the transit; it’s about the zoning. Both the reason we “need” transit in the first place and the reason it’s too expensive per rider to be viable is that our homes and businesses are spread too far apart.
If you’re not within easy walking distance of a grocery store, your town was built wrong.
I literally cannot do either of these things. Haven’t ever been able to in my life. No town I have ever lived in had public transport available. Closest train station was literally a two hour walk away.
It’s a nice thought, but there isn’t enough infrastructure to play like it’s generally available.
That statistic is flawed it counts downstream combustion of coal oil and gas for energy purposes (this is 90% of the total company emissions in the metric) which means you can buy a fossil fuel car fill it with petrol and burn it and that will be counted as corporate emissions
yeah its in like page 1 or 2 of the primary source the stat comes from one sec ill get it
Direct operational emissions (Scope 16 ) and emissions from the use of sold products (Scope 3: Category 11) are attributed to the extraction and production of oil, gas, and coal. Scope 1 emissions arise from the self-consumption of fuel, flaring, and venting or fugitive releases of methane. Scope 3 emissions account for 90% of total company emissions and result from the downstream combustion of coal, oil, and gas for energy purposes. A small fraction of fossil fuel production is used in non-energy applications which sequester carbon.
Or is that the difference between the Scope 1+3 tables and the All cause table in this page?
edit: Snopes has in fact written a fact check that corroborates the methodology used by CDP is potentially flawed for this exact reason. So it will not be accurate - www.snopes.com/…/corporations-greenhouse-gas/.
I’ll defer to the following point by the original Twitter OP though, which I still think is valid: “The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting,” Johnson told us. “Individuals’ choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn’t be the focus of climate coverage.”
tl;dr: Yes, personal responsibility and reducing one’s carbon footprint is also very important, but there is chronic under-reporting on the other end of the equation.
The question is: should we stop reporting on how personal responsibility plays a part just because people think it’s unfair? Isn’t that straight out whataboutism?
still better than the opposite, where you’re just trying to buy food but everything comes in some shitty packaging made of hydrocarbons and it will be counted as your individual contribution to the waste problem. regulation works (that’s why they oppose it so hard) and it works a lot better than “voting with your wallet” which is what we would be supposed to do if it was up to us – where certain people have a hell of a lot more votes than we do
The statement is flawed because it takes the personal responsibility out of those corporate profits. Oil production burns a lot of fuel but it’s profitable because I keep buying it. Cargo ships make a lot of emissions but it’s profitable because I keep buying foreign goods. Cow farms produce tons of methane but they’re so huge because I keep eating beef.
Corporations do not exist without the customer. Massive buyout conglomerations greatly misrepresent true pollution per industry production units. If I said ExxonMobil is the dirtiest company in the world, does that mean they’re polluting worse than BP? No, not by itself. You have to look at tons of oil produced between the two and figure out a pollution per ton figure. Would it make sense to say Amazon is a very clean business because part of their business uses unconditioned warehouses? Not really, you’d probably want to separate out their trucking and delivery divisions from their storage and then compare it to UPS and FedEx via gallons per ton delivered. I’ve even seen people argue their single-item order from Amazon isn’t wasteful because “the truck is coming by anyway”. No! The truck is not an autonomous sushi conveyor belt swinging by. It’s a business asset being routed to customers.
I’m not saying these corporations are good or clean. I’m not saying they don’t cheat, lie, hide, and bribe governments to ignore their hazards. I’m just saying you can’t take a 100% hands off view of the issue, either. I drive a cleaner car and drive less so Exxon makes less. I wait for my ordering needs to build up a little to improve efficiency of the delivery. I buy more local and national so I don’t demand a cargo ship to carry my trinkets. Obviously it’s not perfect and I have a very, very minor impact, but that’s the whole point of being in a society. A community works together for the common good.
Add comment