this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
46 points (100.0% liked)
Environment
3923 readers
2 users here now
Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The statistics itself is probably of good quality, but I dare argue that the media are disrespectful to the original report.
Err... yeah, I mean, yeah? Sure? Are there 1000,000 producers? Just count the big miners and soon you'll reach 80% of emission. Of course.
Indeed, this "just 57" seems to be a view that The Guardian added. The project webpage does no sensationalization of this number. This means, The Guardian did read the report, but chose not to focus on the main contribution. I hate this attitude, being a researcher myself. Well, they saw a professional study and sold it as an amateur argument! I'm sure the authors were disappointed.
I'm fine with the narrative, but if I wanted to lead it, I'd not hack this honest statistics, unlike media are doing this time. I'd instead study how these 57 producers trap and lobby the consumers.
Kudos on the researchers revealing what Exxon is actually doing behind their PR campaign that claims otherwise.
Fair points. Unfortunately, that's on a subed for not fact-checking ahead of the story going live.