A mere 57 mega polluters produce 80 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, new analysis shows
A mere 57 mega polluters produce 80 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, new analysis shows
Just 57 mega polluters are responsible for the bulk of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and most big fossil fuel players have increased, rather than decreased, their output since the Paris Agreement in 2015, a staggering new report finds.
On the one hand, it makes it really hard to stay motivated with the teeny contribution I make to reducing emissions.
On the other, think of how much of a difference these 57 companies could make if they actually reached net-zero targets.
Just remember, carbon footprint was invented by the fossil fuel industry to distract people from how that industry is to blame for climate change. It's rhetoric, not actual science. The research shows that consumptive habits basically can't change your footprint anyway, and it's almost entirely dictated by income. We aren't to blame.
Fossil fuel companies also bought out green tech and buried it, buried climate change research, funded disinfo compaigns, and lobbied states to not fund adoption on green tech initiatives. Their latest propaganda campaign is spreading doomerism.
If they were trying to kill us all, they could hardly do more. The industry as a whole needs to go. There isn't much of an alternative.
I feel that too, but counter it with some good old Taoism:
"A good person is the bad person’s teacher. A bad person is the good person’s task."
It's ok to be the good person who sets an example, you are still making a difference. Stay motivated friend!
Why do they show nuclear cooling towers as "pollution" in a thumbnail? That is only water vapor. Pollution is a serious issue and all, but if they are that dumb about where actual emissions come from in imagery, what does that mean for the article?
Coal power plants also have wide chimneys.
Many forms of powerplants use these types of cooling towers. The real reason usually is, that they make really impressive plumes though. Just makes for a good visual even though it's not technically a relevant image.
It's easy to lose track of the difference an individual can make to climate change, but you must view it from an appropriate perspective:
https://crowdsourcingsustainability.org/climate-change-can-one-person-really-make-a-difference/
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-yes-your-individual-action-does-make-a-difference-115169
It's hard to remain positive these days, so please take some time to remind yourself about all the things that are going well in the world:
The biggest impact we can make is to consume less. You can take shorter showers your whole life and have next to no impact, but if you consume less it adds to to way more
I hate to be that guy, but exposing evil acts doesn’t mean anything these days. Where is the accountability? When will the billionaire assholes who have destroyed our planet, our decency, and our ability to see people who disagree with us as human beings finally face accountability? Real world consequences?
Still waiting…
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The report is released by UK non-for-profit think tank InfluenceMap, which focuses on climate risks and is known for its work tracking the lobbying of fossil fuel emitters.
The report traces emissions as far back as the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning fossil fuels and emitting increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
Overall, China's national coal production has been the biggest single source of pollution, accounting for 14 per cent of global historical emissions, with the former Soviet Union coming in second.
The database was cited in a recent case in which a Belgian farmer was arguing that an oil and gas company was partly responsible for damage to his farm from extreme weather.
"We're also seeing [the data] in academic research, quantifying the contribution that the emissions by these producers have made to, for example, sea level rise to forest fire risk, and so on.
"It's certainly an interesting issue to analyse further, what's causing that, whether it's investor pressure that has managed to somewhat drive down the production of coal among investor-owned companies," Mr Van Acker told the ABC.
The original article contains 655 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!