this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
557 points (97.8% liked)

News

23259 readers
3067 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Only 57 fossil fuels and cement producers have been responsible for most of the world's CO2 emissions since 2016, according to the Carbon Majors report by InfluenceMap
  • Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, and Coal India were the top three CO2-emitting companies during this period.
  • InfluenceMap's database aims to increase transparency around climate change contributors for legal, academic, campaign, and investor purposes.

Archive.org

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 62 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This just in: few companies supply energy to our planet.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. These are massive conglomerates that will keep pumping as long as the demand exists

[–] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 51 points 7 months ago (1 children)

These are massive conglomerates that will keep demand high by attacking alternative energy sources, funding climate denial, and engaging in sanctioned corruption.

[–] ChilledPeppers@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

And (artificially) lowering fossil fuel prices, if we tax the shit out of oil companies, people will start looking for alternatives.

[–] hannes3120@feddit.de 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah - those headlines do more harm than good as people will just point fingers and think it's enough to shut those companies down in order to fix climate change...

As long as there's demand other companies will step in and then instead of those few you have 10-20 supplying the same amount of oil with nothing gained

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago

subsidy and investment on green energy are great ideas to cut the cycle. they could be doing that.

instead we subsidy and invest in fossil fuels instead...

[–] exanime@lemmy.today 2 points 7 months ago

How would there ever be less demand if these same companies sabotage any alternative?

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 56 points 7 months ago
[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 27 points 7 months ago (16 children)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago (3 children)

No no it’s regular people not putting plastic take-out containers in the recycling bin doing it!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nobody@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

They also knew about climate change in the 1970s and deliberately hid that information and spent massive amounts of money to attack anyone who tried to blow the whistle.

[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (8 children)

Of course and what is it that they want you to do? Just cut your food intake, eat lab meat, lab milk, bugs, and live in a shoebox. When food production in the USA is 9% of all carbon emissions. And out of those 9%, less than 3.8% is meat. While the cruise ship industry is 3.3% of total, worldwide.

Meanwhile, our CEO's, their boards, and their extended families, and largest stockholders go on, out on yatchs, zipping around in private jets, go to massive, endless, exorbitant decadent private events and eat whatever they want, whenever they want, because... suck it, pleb.

[–] redhydride@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And then they go online asking you to reduce your carbon footprint. It's a joke

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

All fine and good except those 57 companies encompass 80% of all fossil fuel business right?

I'm not saying it doesn't need to be fixed, but I am saying that it's misleading.

[–] jorp@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think the takeaway is that it's a lot easier to change the behavior of 57 companies than it is to change the behavior of billions of people and it's bullshit that individual action is the only proposed solution to climate change under capitalism.

Not just that, but individual action among a sea of intentional obfuscation, green washing, and while still pushing overconsumption.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

That's a nice dream. I hope it can come true, but those 57 companies also own 90% of the US Congress and probably a large swath of the governments in 2nd and third-world countries. The people that need to make them stop are almost literally on their payroll.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Its even more misleading that you would count the fossil fuels used by other companies towards the producer. You can't decrease the emissions by doing anything about these companies (without collapsing the whole economy), you need to transition the consumers to different energy sources.

It is like saying the Water companies are responsible for 100% of water usage...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Dearth@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Let's not forget about the US military which is the number 1 polluter in the world

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Most of the world's carbon emissions come from burning fossil fuels, so, yes, it would be those fossil fuel producers who would be linked to those emissions. I suppose we could all come together and force those companies to shut down and cease operations immediately. Global greenhouse gas emissions would plummet, but the global economy would collapse and there would be mass starvation and death.

[–] msage@programming.dev 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So, lets start by building food sources as much removed from oil as possible.

Invest into low-energy housing.

Continue with green energy.

Stop building everything else.

Forget about economy, planned obsolence, and start discussing distribution of natural resources and investing into science.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

They're the ones who have kept us from putting anything else in place though.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] SupahRevs@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

China needs to move away from coal. This would be a huge change in global emissions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Why are they counting emissions at extraction and not consumption?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›