[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]
17365
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions
URL: Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions
|
"New data shows how fossil fuel companies have driven climate crisis despite industry knowing dangers Half a century of dither and denial – a climate crisis timeline The Guardian today reveals the 20 fossil fuel companies whose relentless exploitation of the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves can be directly linked to more than one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the modern era. New data from world-renowned researchers reveals how this cohort of state-owned and multinational firms are driving the climate emergency that threatens the future of humanity, and details how they have continued to expand their operations despite being aware of the industry’s devastating impact on the planet. The analysis, by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in the US, the world’s leading authority on big oil’s role in the escalating climate emergency, evaluates what the global corporations have extracted from the ground, and the subsequent emissions these fossil fuels are responsible for since 1965 – the point at which experts say the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by both industry leaders and politicians. The top 20 companies on the list have contributed to 35% of all energy- related carbon dioxide and methane worldwide, totalling 480bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) since 1965. Those identified range from investor-owned firms – household names such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell – to state-owned companies including Saudi Aramco and Gazprom. Chevron topped the list of the eight investor-owned corporations, followed closely by Exxon, BP and Shell. Together these four global businesses are behind more than 10% of the world’s carbon emissions since 1965. Play Video 3:46 Why we need political action to tackle the oil, coal and gas companies - video explainer Twelve of the top 20 companies are state-owned and together their extractions are responsible for 20% of total emissions in the same period. The leading state-owned polluter is Saudi Aramco, which has produced 4.38% of the global total on its own. Michael Mann, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, said the findings shone a light on the role of fossil fuel companies and called on politicians at the forthcoming climate talks in Chile in December to take urgent measures to rein in their activities. “The great tragedy of the climate crisis is that seven and a half billion people must pay the price – in the form of a degraded planet – so that a couple of dozen polluting interests can continue to make record profits. It is a great moral failing of our political system that we have allowed this to happen.” The global polluters list uses company-reported annual production of oil, natural gas, and coal and then calculates how much of the carbon and methane in the produced fuels is emitted to the atmosphere throughout the supply chain, from extraction to end use. It found that 90% of the emissions attributed to the top 20 climate culprits was from use of their products, such as petrol, jet fuel, natural gas, and thermal coal. One-tenth came from extracting, refining, and delivering the finished fuels. The Guardian approached the 20 companies named in the polluters list. Eight of them have replied. Some argued that they were not directly responsible for how the oil, gas or coal they extracted were used by consumers. Several disputed claims that the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known as far back as the late 1950s or that the industry collectively had worked to delay action. Most explicitly said they accepted the climate science and some claimed to support the targets set out in the Paris agreement to reduce emissions and keep global temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. All pointed out efforts they were making to invest in renewable or low carbon energy sources and said fossil fuel companies had an important role to play in addressing the climate crisis. PetroChina said it was a separate company from its predecessor, China National Petroleum, so had no influence over, or responsibility for, its historical emissions. The companies’ replies can be read in full here. The latest study builds on previous work by Heede and his team that has looked at the historical role of fossil fuel companies in the escalating climate crisis. The impact of emissions from coal, oil and gas produced by fossil fuel companies has been huge. According to research published in 2017 by Peter Frumhoff at the Union of Concerned Scientists in the US and colleagues, CO2 and methane emissions from the 90 biggest industrial carbon producers were responsible for almost half the rise in global temperature and close to a third of the sea level rise between 1880 and 2010. The scientists said such work furthered the “consideration of [companies’] historical responsibilities for climate change”. Heede said: “These companies and their products are substantially responsible for the climate emergency, have collectively delayed national and global action for decades, and can no longer hide behind the smokescreen that consumers are the responsible parties. “Oil, gas, and coal executives derail progress and offer platitudes when their vast capital, technical expertise, and moral obligation should enable rather than thwart the shift to a low-carbon future.” Heede said 1965 was chosen as the start point for this new data because recent research had revealed that by that stage the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by industry leaders and politicians, particularly in the US. In November 1965, the president, Lyndon Johnson, released a report authored by the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, which set out the likely impact of continued fossil fuel production on global heating. In the same year, the president of the American Petroleum Institute told its annual gathering: “One of the most important predictions of the [president’s report] is that carbon dioxide is being added to the Earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas at such a rate by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts.” Heede added: “Leading companies and industry associations were aware of, or wilfully ignored, the threat of climate change from continued use of their products since the late 1950s.” The research aims to hold to account those companies most responsible for carbon emissions, and shift public and political debate away from a focus just on individual responsibility. It follows a warning from the UN in 2018 that the world has just 12 years to avoid the worst consequences of runaway global heating and restrict temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. The study shows that many of the worst offenders are investor-owned companies that are household names around the world and spend billions of pounds on lobbying governments and portraying themselves as environmentally responsible. A study earlier this year found that the largest five stock-market-listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m each year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change. Heede said the companies had a “significant moral, financial, and legal responsibility for the climate crisis, and a commensurate burden to help address the problem”. He added: “Even though global consumers from individuals to corporations are the ultimate emitters of carbon dioxide, the Climate Accountability Institute focuses its work on the fossil fuel companies that, in our view, have their collective hand on the throttle and the tiller determining the rate of carbon emissions and the shift to non-carbon fuels.” $676,500 contributions $1,250,000 our goal Since you're here ... ... we have a small favour to ask. Millions are flocking to the Guardian for open, independent, quality news every day. Readers in all 50 states and in 180 countries around the world now support us financially. As we prepare for what promises to be a pivotal year for America, we’re asking you to consider a year-end gift to help fund our journalism. Donald Trump’s presidency is ending, but America’s systemic challenges remain. From broken healthcare to corrosive racial inequality, from rapacious corporations to a climate crisis, the need for fact-based reporting that highlights injustice and offers solutions is as great as ever. We believe everyone deserves access to information that’s grounded in science and truth, and analysis rooted in authority and integrity. That’s why we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. Powerful journalism drives change; this is some of the high-impact reporting that Guardian readers funded in 2020. In these perilous times, an independent, global news organisation like the Guardian is essential. We have no shareholders or billionaire owner, meaning our journalism is free from commercial and political influence." |
Responses:
[17367] [17369] [17370] [17380] [17381] [17384] [17386] [17388] [17389] [17392] [17393] [17390] [17383] [17385] [17387] [17376] [17377] [17379] [17371] [17368]
17367
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
by Judith Curry How the ‘blame game’ gets in the way of solving complex societal problems. An essay on how attempting to identify blame for complex societal problems can get in the way of finding solutions to these problems. What the climate ‘blame game’ can learn from the Covid-19 ‘blame game.’ The blame for climate change Manmade climate change is an emergent problem caused mainly by the abundance and usefulness of fossil fuels in providing cheap, reliable energy. In his book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, energy theorist Alex Epstein outlines the benefits that the development of coal, oil, and natural gas have had on mankind, including improved health, increased lifespan, and expansion of material welfare. Economist Richard Tol evaluated the private benefit of carbon, which is the value of energy services produced by fossil fuels. He finds that the private benefit of carbon is much greater than the social cost of carbon that causes damage via climate change; these benefits are related to the benefits of abundant and reliable energy. So, who is to blame for fossil fuel emissions and manmade climate change? consumers and industries who demand electric power, transportation, and steel, which are produced using fossil fuels; or electric utilities providers and manufacturers of the internal combustion and jet engines that use fossil fuels; or oil/gas and coal companies that produce fossil fuels; or governments who have the authority to regulate fossil fuel emissions. The blame for manmade climate change is occasionally placed on national governments. The Urgenda ruling ordered the Dutch government to step up its climate actions in reducing emissions. In the Juliana civil lawsuit, the U.S. federal government was blamed for declining to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, pass a carbon tax and trade bill and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. However, most often in civil litigation, the blame is placed on oil/gas and coal companies that produce the fuels. The role of climate science in the carbon blame game is an interesting one. As a basis of responsibility, a key element is the causal link between the actor and the harm. Responsibility is also based on the ability to foresee the harm, in terms of scientific understanding. And finally, responsibility relates to the ability to prevent the harm. Recent developments in attribution science are seeking to identify the culpability of individual or groups of oil/gas and coal companies as related to local sea level rise, ocean acidification and extreme weather events. Carbon Majors A new wave of private climate litigation has been motivated by publication of the Carbon Majors study by Richard Heede. Heede’s research shows that nearly two-thirds of anthropogenic carbon emissions originated from just 90 companies and government-run industries. Among them, the top eight companies account for 20 percent of world carbon emissions from fossil fuels and cement production since the Industrial Revolution. Four of the eight companies are owned by national governments, whereas the other four are multinational corporations. Heede’s research was a turning point in the debate about apportioning responsibility for climate change. While Heede’s work helped identify individual defendants or groups of defendants related to climate change, it did not resolve the question of whether these emitters are responsible for specific climate change-related impacts and events. Arriving at a dangerous climate outcome includes a causal chain based on increasing atmospheric CO2 and global mean surface temperature. By tracing company emissions over time, Ekwurzel et al. (2017) attribute fractions of the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, increases in atmospheric temperature and elevation of the sea level to the Carbon Major companies. Ekwurzeil et al. mentioned in the conclusions the idea of extending this attribution logic to extreme weather events. A recent paper by Lickey et al. (2019) attempts to attribute ocean acidification to Carbon Majors. The science of attribution, or causality, is not at all straightforward. There are two specific issues here: whether climate models are valid sources of legal evidence for climate change attribution/cause; and also the importance of determining partial causation in the context of natural climate variability. Blame sharing Attribution of harm associated with the weather, climate change or sea level rise is complicated by the existence of multiple causes. Assuming that some percentage of the harm can be justifiably attributed to fossil fuel emissions, does it make sense to attribute this harm in a legal sense to the producers of fossil fuels, e.g. coal and oil/gas companies? David Victor is a global thought leader on climate change policy and the energy-systems transformation that is required for a low-carbon future. Victor dismissed Heede’s work on the Carbon Majors as part of a “larger narrative of trying to create villains,” seeking to distinguish between producers as being responsible for the problem and everyone else as victims. Victor stated: “Frankly we’re all the users and therefore we’re all guilty.” [link] In the same article, Richard Heede (author of the Carbon Majors report) concedes that the responsibility is shared. He stated: “I as a consumer bear some responsibility for my own car, et cetera. But we’re living an illusion if we think we’re making choices, because the infrastructure pretty much makes those choices for us.” Heede makes a key point by saying that the infrastructure pretty much makes the choices for us. The demand for fossil fuels is driven by electric utility and transportation infrastructures. Individual consumers and companies are faced with a limited number of other options, unless they forego grid electricity and do not avail themselves of transportation systems that run on fossil fuels. Individual consumers and companies are responsible for the demand for electric utilities and transportation, but are arguably indifferent to the source of electric power or transportation, provided that it is abundant, reliable, safe and economical. If there were no demand for fossil fuels, then there would be nothing to blame on the Carbon Majors. The fact that there is continued and growing demand for fossil fuels indicates that the issue of blame is not straightforward. A change from fossil fuels to cleaner fuels is not simple or cheap, owing to infrastructure. For electric power, this includes generation and transmission infrastructure. For transportation, this includes vehicle engines and their manufacture plus refueling infrastructure. David Victor states: “To create a narrative that involves corporate guilt as opposed to problem- solving is not going solve anything.” A problem- solving focus on infrastructure is needed for progress, but exactly what the infrastructure should look like depends on available and planned technologies, economics and public policy. Covid-19 analogy Covid-19 provides an interesting case study regarding ‘blame.’ The origin of the virus is generally regarded to have occurred in Wuhan, China. However, it is difficult to blame the worldwide spread of the virus on Wuhan. While Covid-19 statistics coming from China are incomplete and have been judged to be not trustworthy, China appears to have done a better job at containing the internal spread of the virus than many other countries. Currently, the ‘blame’ is focused on transmitters who are not adhering to lockdown and mask wearing requirements plus the politicians who aren’t requiring them to do so. With the advent of Covid-19 vaccines, the Covid-19 discussion is now dominated by the vaccine, with the origin of the disease receiving little attention. The cure to the pandemic is technological, in the form of vaccines; not worldwide behavioral change (although behavioral change has worked in some smaller regions/countries). In many countries, behavioral modifications to limit transmission that were associated with mandatory lockdowns simply didn’t work, for reasons of economic infeasibility, concerns about psychological well being associated with isolation, and general political non-viability. Conclusion In context of the climate debate, the lesson from Covid-19 is this. A technological solution (analogous to development of the vaccine) in terms of better electricity generation and transmission would quickly silence the climate ‘blame game’ by solving the problems to the environment caused by burning fossil fuels. Suffering from insufficient electric power or electric power that is too expensive or unreliable (analogous to the Covid lockdowns) is economically damaging and politically unviable. Again, the solution is problem solving and new technologies, not blame. While isolation and austerity can be invoked for short time periods, they are not solutions. The Covid-19 blame game didn’t get in the way of finding a solution (i.e. vaccine). However, the rush to blame the fossil fuel companies and punish them is getting in the way of a sensible transition away from the worst impacts of fossil fuels on the environment. A sensible transition involves continued use of relatively clean and dispatchable natural gas, avoids massive infrastructure investments in wind energy that have dubious net benefits over the life cycle of the wind turbines, and developing an improved energy infrastructure for the 21st century. Abundant, secure, reliable, economical, and clean. How do we prioritize among these, and to what extent should ‘clean’ trump the others? Do we define ‘clean’ only in terms of emissions, or do we also include mining/exploration, land use, life cycle issues, etc.? I am still waiting for a moral argument that justifies, in the name of the ‘climate crisis’, preventing the development of grid electricity in the poorest regions of Africa that can support development of an advanced economy. I suspect that I will be waiting a long time for such a justification, because there isn’t one. Playing the carbon ‘blame game’ is an excuse for punishing certain companies without actually solving societal problems. The net effect is continued suffering in developing countries, failure to make much headway on reducing emissions and certainly a failure to ‘improve’ the climate in any way. |
Responses:
[17369] [17370] [17380] [17381] [17384] [17386] [17388] [17389] [17392] [17393] [17390] [17383] [17385] [17387] [17376] [17377] [17379] [17371] [17368]
17369
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
| so i'm guessing this does not mean you are going to quit blaming china and accept responsibility...i certainly do not agree with epstein's and tol's conclusions...the fossil fuel industry is responsible for 3 of the major problems the world faces today...global warming/climate change, the wars to control the resources, and plastics...your and their idea of an advanced economy is much different than mine...the oil companies deliberately pushed disinformation about climate change and global warming to increase profits...that deserves condemnation and blame from all...and they continue their malicious practices...we are all guilty, but they are criminally guilty and deserve the blame, and should be required to pay for their actions...we will all pay for their actions...we are already paying... but the answers lie in a higher state of being...until the majority can attain that state, the foolishness and lack of foresight of mankind, supported by the greed and grab of the lower forms, will continue to lead us to extinction... |
Responses:
[17370] [17380] [17381] [17384] [17386] [17388] [17389] [17392] [17393] [17390] [17383] [17385] [17387] [17376] [17377] [17379] [17371]
17370
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
Hi ryan, You look at everything from a blame oriented perspective so you never seem to grasp I don't blame China any more than I would blame the wind for blowing. It is a simple fact that China is the largest emitter on the planet with double the emissions of any other nation. Even before they became the number 1 emitter, back during Kyoto it was obvious that emissions from the 21st century would come from China and other "developing" nations. It isn't about blame but about understanding the issue of global emissions. Our whole society, the society that built these devices we are communicating on is based on the burning of fossil fuels. It is not only unproductive but it is foolish to play the blame game blaming the companies that provide the fossil fuels that power everything we do. You speak of silly things like people needing to be "in a higher state of being", yet you have lived the life you have powered by fossil fuels. And you still do.. we all do. A small but growing percentage of our power comes from clean sources but at present it is still a very small percent. And what do blame oriented people like yourself suggest? Are we going to string up all the oil and coal executives? While we are still using fossil fuels or does your delusion envision the 7 billion people on the planet will simultaneously just stop burning fossil fuels completely? No, the blame game isn't a productive game. It is typically just finger pointing by small minded people who typically can't comprehend the global nature of this problem and that it can only solved with global solutions. Fossil fuels are responsible for most of the good that has happened to the human race and also much of the bad. But we aren't going to stop burning fossil fuels until we have clean renewable energy and that also is a simple fact. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17380] [17381] [17384] [17386] [17388] [17389] [17392] [17393] [17390] [17383] [17385] [17387] [17376] [17377] [17379] [17371]
17380
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: The blame game
|
How about replacing the concept of “blame” with one of responsibility, as in the idea that a global industry such as the oil industry should take responsibility for the consequences of its activity; consequences which include creating addiction, resource/land/water/air degradation, and deleterious health consequences for animal and human life around the planet? But no, if you want to be inflammatory, use “blame”. It works better. |
Responses:
[17381] [17384] [17386] [17388] [17389] [17392] [17393] [17390] [17383] [17385] [17387]
17381
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
Hi Akira, It really doesn't matter if you want to call it blame or call it taking responsibility for the consequences, it kinda amounts to the same thing. Again fossil fuels are responsible for bringing people out of poverty, improved health and increased human life expectancy as well as expansion of material welfare. Fossil fuels aren't inherently bad, tut the age of fossil fuels is coming to an end. It just won't come to an end until a viable replacement is in place. Punishing oil and coal companies is not a productive in any way to aid in bringing an end to the age of fossil duels. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17384] [17386] [17388] [17389] [17392] [17393] [17390] [17383] [17385] [17387]
17384
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
I get it, that's your story & you're sticking to it. Repeating it often won't change the fact that fossil fuels are inherently bad when they wind up in oceans & fresh waterways, when they destroy livelihoods of indigenous people and when they smother wildlife. Chevron is refusing to pay for the 'Amazon Chernobyl' – we can fight back with citizen action https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/17/chevron- amazon-oil-toxic-waste-dump-ecuador-boycott Excerpt: In 2001, Chevron acquired Texaco, including all of its assets and civil liabilities. One of those liabilities was the “Amazon Chernobyl”, a 1,700- square-mile environmental disaster in Ecuador that Texaco created through a disregard – and an attitude that local Indigenous groups have called racism – for the health of the region’s peoples. Texaco, the sole operator of the fields from 1964 to 1992, eventually admitted that it deliberately discharged 72bn litres of toxic water into the environment, which ended up in the water supply, and gouged 1,000 unlined waste pits out of the jungle floor. According to several Indigenous witnesses, including Humberto Piaguaje, a leader of the Ecuadorean Secoya people, the company actually claimed that the oil wastes were medicinal and “full of vitamins”. ********************** Shell lawsuit (re oil pollution in Nigeria) https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/shell-lawsuit-re-oil- pollution-in-nigeria/ ******************************* 5 Environmental Consequences of Oil Spills Oil damages wildlife, marine ecosystems, and coastal environments https://www.treehugger.com/environmental-consequences-of-oil-spills- 1204088 **************************************** OIL SPILL SETTLEMENTS AND VERDICTS Oil spills cause extensive environmental and economic damage. They can destroy the natural habitats of thousands of birds, fish, sea mammals, plants, and other marine life. Further, workers and businesses that rely on the health of these species can lose their source of income when oil spills occur near coastlines. Those who suffer the economic consequences of these disasters can file suit against the responsible parties, and many claims have already been resolved through oil spill settlements. EXXON-VALDEZ * Settlement Amount: $507.5 million * Party at Fault: Exxon and its subsidiary Exxon Shipping Company The Exxon-Valdez oil spill led to one of the largest environmental settlements in U.S. history, after about 11 million gallons of oil was released into the ocean. An Anchorage, AK, jury originally awarded $287 million in compensatory damages and $5 billion in punitive damages in the case. After several appeals, the total amount of punitive damages was reduced to the same amount as compensatory damages, in accordance with maritime common law. KOCH INDUSTRIES * Settlement Amount: $30 million * Party at Fault: Koch Industries Koch Industries is a privately held U.S. oil company. The company was hit with lawsuits in 1995 and 1997 in relation to more than 300 oil spills that occurred in six states after oil leaked from the company's pipes and facilities. The suits alleged that 3 million gallons of oil were released into ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, onto shorelines, and other water sources. In addition to the civil fine, the company was required to allocate $5 million for environmental safety projects and improve its leak prevention systems. PRUDHOE BAY * Settlement Amount: $20 million * Party at Fault: BP Corroded pipelines released an estimated 267,000 gallons of oil into Prudhoe Bay, off of the northern coast of Alaska. The company was fined $20 million for violating the Clean Water Act and for negligent discharge of oil, and placed on three years of probation for the crime. CONOCOPHILLIPS * Settlement Amount: $588,000 * Party at Fault: ConocoPhillips and its subsidiary Polar Tankers Inc. According to a federal investigation, an oil tanker owned by Polar Tankers spilled between 1,000 and 7,200 gallons of Alaskan oil into Dalco Passage when it was delivering the load to a refinery in Tacoma, Washington. https://www.impactlaw.com/international-catastrophic/oil-spills/settlements |
17386
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
Hi Akira, I don't disagree that fossil fuels have caused all kinds of bad things along with all the good things they have done for mankind. But I can only echo what Dr Curry wrote that the blame game is not helpful in any way. People and corporations should be held liable.. but many confuse that with real action. Cheers Jim |
17388
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
But achieving justice requires find fault, guilt & wrongdoing. In other words, blame. There's no way to force accountability and make victims whole without it. |
17389
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
Hi Akira, But with a complex global issue such as global CO2 emissions and climate change what do you envision is going to "make victims whole"? People could be charged, fined, sued, serve time in prison or even burned at the stake but global CO2 levels are just going to keep rising. The blame game, even when someone deserves blame isn't in the least bit helpful to a complex issue such as global emissions and climate change. Cheers Jim |
17392
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
URL: As The Climate Crisis Intensifies, Trump Digs In On Denial
|
How about when we even have oil companies agreeing with the IPCC's consensus on climate change, yet the leader of the largest oil producer nation in the world does this? No blame? No accountability? excerpt "A federal climate report released by the Trump administration in 2017 concluded that “it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Yet Trump and his team have plowed ahead with rollbacks that allow for more planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. An analysis released last week by the Rhodium Group, a New York-based independent research provider, found that Trump’s dismantling of Obama administration climate policies will result in the U.S. releasing an additional 1.8 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by 2035. As Politico noted, that amount exceeds Russia’s annual emissions. " |
Responses:
[17393]
17393
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
Hi Akira, Yes, another great example of how the blame game is unproductive. It is easy for people to grasp that they should be against certain individuals when the problem is much bigger than that and many just can't grasp tho global nature of this issue. This article looks to blame Trump. Your article that started this thread was about 20 fossil fuel companies, most of them government owned are responsible. But the simple fact is that our world is powered by fossil fuels from the energy used to power these devices we are communicating on to the internet as a whole to the food we purchase in stores. Don't you see the foolishness of playing the blame game while typing on an electric powered device while eating food that was grown with fossil fuel powered tractors and farm equipment and delivered in a fossil fuel powered truck to a store that is illuminated with fossil fuel powered lights? We can punish the current batch of fossil fuel industry executives along with the ancestors of the last generation of fossil fuel executives and that won't reduce global emissions. Looking at the graph above we can see that emissions from China continue their rapid climb along with other developing nations (dashed line) as well as India which is going to continue driving emissions ever higher. Again how do you think these people could be held "accountable"? And can you not understand if the current batch of executives at Saudi Aramco, Coal India, PetroChina are publicly executed tomorrow these entities will continue to provide the fossil fuels to the citizens who benefit from fossil fuels until we finally have a clean energy revolution and can put fossil fuels behind us? People generally like accountability, revenge, retribution, etc. but in a world powered by fossil fuels the blame game benefits no one. It certainly isn't productive in reducing global CO2 emissions. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
17390
From: Daisy Lionheart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Let Me Guess...
| You own oil stocks! |
Responses:
None
17383
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
| punishing people that take advantage of their position and power to exploit and victimize the masses for their own personal gain is quite different than what you are complaining about...they deserve to be punished...their ill-gotten gains should be seized and parceled out those they grifted... |
17385
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
Hi ryan, So you've punished some people... then what? And does the same apply to fossil fuel executives on the other side of the planet? And does your punishing people help reduce global emissions in any way? That was the point of Dr Curry's post, the ‘blame game’ gets in the way of solving complex societal problems. You want your pound of flesh so much it means more to you to punish people than any progress in reducing global emissions. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17387]
17387
From: Daisy Lionheart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: You're Darn Tootin'!
|
I'll take one pound of flesh on wry...and make it SNAPPY! Smiley Face 😠 P.S. DEfund fossil fuels (Big Oil) Prioritize funding for alternatives..Solar,Wind Easy Peasy...Tesla: "FREE energy is abundant", But Nooooo, can't have that...YET!😄 |
Responses:
None
17376
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
| i think we should put them in giant hamster wheels hooked up to generators... |
17377
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
Hi ryan, Sure, sure, retribution, punishment, you want your pound of flesh. But what then? You've had your vengeance, but planes are still flying, cars are still driving, ships are still sailing, people are still using electricity all over the globe. That's why the blame game is kind of like sticking your head up your own ass. All you can see is your own shit which blinds you to everything. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[17379]
17379
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
It's the collective result of working the earth toward death by the dominant species, planting thorns and thistles results in reaping thorns and thistles. The work of the hands gone the wrong way... yet humans worship the work of their own hands that seed destruction and pay taxes for more destruction wearing the heavy yoke enslaving themselves. |
Responses:
None
17371
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: The blame game
|
Maybe your'e foolish, maybe your'e blind Thinking you can see through this and see what's behind Got no way to prove it so maybe your'e blind But your'e only human after all, your'e only human after all Don't put your blame on (????) Take a look in the mirror and what do you see Do you see it clearer or are you deceived in what you believe |
Responses:
None
17368
From: Daisy Lionheart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: All The 'Right' Stuff...Timing Is Everything...
|
...and it appears to be too little, too late... thanks to the 'Blame-ee', never mind all of the evidence indicating clear correlation between cause and effect, increasing with each passing year. "Highest recorded temps" across the globe, and breaking those records year after year. Hmmm... nothing to see here folks, move along! Here's an idea...take 'investor' profit out of the equation, and maybe, just maybe the health of the planet will become more of a pressing issue to those still living...for the good of all ('future'? generations). Ya think? Filthy lucre - dirtier than oil...or coal!! |
Responses:
None
[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]