Of course sponsored by Bill Gates, just a reminder that 100 corporations emits 70% of all greenhouse emissions.
That statement is just completely wrong. The correct statement should be ‘70% of the emissions from oil and cement products can be linked to 100 companies’. And linked means produced here. It also includes the products these companies sell so it also includes: the CO2 of the production of your PC, some of the electricity your PC used, recycling your PC,…
It’s basically the 100 biggest oil companies. They themselves make roughly 12% of this pollution, bit that is only made to produce the oil.
Companies are also not just producing CO2. No one is polluting for fun. It’s all done to create products for customers. Less products=less co2. Ofc it might be possible to reduce emissions in production, but producing less is the easiest and will be needed, especially ppl from the West. Don’t be fooled, even with all the ‘greener’ industry and all heavy industry moved elsewhere, we still produce multiple times the amount of CO2 per Capita than China or India.
THANK YOU! The “it’s all the corporations” is what the corporations REALLY want people to believe because then people can buy the crap from them guilt free.
It is really quite simple. This is directed at the US. Car dependent design has to change. We have to eat leftovers. We need to eat a lot less beef. The cars we drive can’t be canyoneros or monster trucks. Fast fashion has to stop. No more coal power. Stop building methane plants. We need to stop buying cheap throwaway crap. We need to rebuild our rail network and upgrade it to HSR. Get rid of methane in homes. If we do all that, our wallets will be fatter too.
The whole individual carbon footprint thing is designed to make normal people feel bad and personally responsible, and forget that changes an individual can realistically make absolutely pale in comparison to changes made by companies.
Additionally, the footprint of the individual would be smaller if companies polluted less, but it entirely glosses over that aspect, and makes us feel personally accountable for the damage because we indulge in something now and then. Something created by a company which has all the power, but none of the will, to reduce the impact.
It’s not like we have much actual choice about where our energy comes from, or how our products are made. Nor should we be expected to forgo pleasures in life because the people running companies are evil greedy [removed], and fight against any and all attempts to reign their polluting in…
I think it has to be a bit of both. If we ever want to reach any co2 goal, it’ll have to be with both less consumption and less pollution in production. Or a drastic reduction in the population, but let’s hope that won’t happen.
I do feel like the carbon footprint is a campaign similar to the other green washing campaigns.
I don’t think there is any other option than a global co2 tax. It’s not like the economic system is going to change any time soon and ‘evil greedy basters’ are good at minimizing costs so this will have an impact. And this tax will cause polluting product to just cost more so either there use will go down or the tax can be used for other reductions.
There have even been companies that ask for it. They can’t justify heavy investments to pollute less if their competitors don’t have to.
A fair point. I do like how it quantifies things, basically throwing in people’s faces “QUIT WORRYING ABOUT THE DAMN STRAWS”. But yes, it would be nice if it had a quantified “here’s the value proposition from lobbying to reign in mining and fossil fuel extraction” that was like 100 times more carbon saved vs. your personal vehicle.
For reference, here is what I found in terms of where the carbon being emitted actually comes from.