100 Companies To Blame For 71% Of Global Emissions?
By Paul Homewood
This story, though four years old, continues to the rounds. I saw it the other day on a FoE Facebook post:
Since 1988, a mere 100 companies have been responsible for 71 percent of the entire world’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions.
This data comes from an inaugural report published by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), an environmental non-profit. Charting the rapid expansion of the fossil fuel industry in the last 28 years, they have now released some truly staggering numbers on the world’s major carbon polluters.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are typically assessed by country, with China, the US and India ranking as the top emissions producers in the world. But the new CDP report takes a different approach, tracing emissions back to specific entities it dubs ‘carbon majors’.
The report focusses on carbon and methane emissions from industrial activity by fossil fuel producers, accounting for a whopping 923 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions since 1988, the year when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established.
If it sounds like a lot, that’s because it really is a huge amount. In fact, it’s more than half of all global industrial GHG emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1751, according to the report.
Needless to say it is rubbish.
This is the list of the Top 10:
But, of course, it is not these fossil fuel companies that emit anything, it is the people who burn them.
Let’s look at the UK for instance:
Residential emissions account for 15% of the total, but the public’s emissions don’t stop there.
Transport contributes another 28%, and the vast bulk of this comes from private individuals. Even emissions from industry and agriculture ultimately enable the production of goods and foods for public consumption.
In effect, therefore, all UK emissions directly or indirectly are related to public consumption.
What the far left promoters of this tosh would like to see is the shutting down of all fossil fuel producers, as part of their New World Order. Maybe they would like to tell us what our lives will be like when this happens!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-decarbonisation-strategy
Looked at this report; it seems that the government believe that a lot of bull-reports cover their incompetence. The similar report on energy security covered security for one year. This report blithely assumes that industry will invest massive amounts in low carbon technology: the hidden issue is the carbon pricing that will be needed to make this happen – which is a straight tax on us all. These reports are good examples of MBAs working with monkeys-with-spreadsheets to produce glowing reports with lots of coulds, mights and maybes in them.
This is government strategic policy, utterly ridiculous unachievable pointless futility.
Situation normal.
I spent 42 years working for a company which produces Nickel Alloys. The processes included:
Induction air melting (natural gas burners being used for preheating transfer ladles and casting receivers).
Vacuum induction melting
Electro-Slag Remelting (an electric arc refining process which sees material from an electrode dripped through slag to remove impurities)
Vacuum arc refining
Forging (gas-fired batch furnaces being used for reheating)
Extrusion (gas-fired batch furnaces being used for reheating)
And various other processes (including gas and electric fired annealing furnaces) to produce a variety of bar, section and tube in an assortment of different alloy compositions.
(N.B. At one time, there was also a large hydrogen atmosphere bright annealing furnace, until it went BANG! It wasn’t replaced).
While never to say never, I cannot see how such an industry can be decarbonised without incurring such cost as to make it completely inviable.
“Maybe they would like to tell us what our lives will be like when this happens!”
And there again, maybe they wouldn’t!
We have a pretty good idea if we care to give it some thought which ‘they’ would much rather we didn’t because if the message ever really, really got through it would be ‘lasso and lampost’ time — maybe even literally!
A bit like money (only “people” have the stuff, not governments), emissions are only made by “people” living their normal lives.
Emissions?
Green-Induced Environmental Nightmare Unfolds —
Turbines exploding into flames, blades exploding into the ether and turbines, well, just plain exploding – make a mockery of claims by cultists that wind power is clean, green and as safe as houses!
Horrific Details here —
First of all the headline is misleading as it refers to global emissions whereas the text refers to industrial emissions.
The next problem is that the figures are assessments rather than measurements. I can’t imagine China, Gazprom or Aramco cooperating with any survey so this is just a variation of another model.
923 billion tons of CO2 since 1988 is not actually that much when you look at what is already in the atmosphere. In fact they refer to “CO2 equivalent” whatever that is.
Rather a shoddy piece but it will of course be pounced upon by the Alarmists and treat it as a doomster’s factual piece of scientific research. They are still referring to the 97% of scientists for goodness sake.
923 billion tons of CO2 is 118 parts per million. Subtract that from today’s 420 ppm and you get 302 ppm. That’s the atmospheric value in 1960, not 1988 when it was 350 ppm.
Absurd. But 350 ppm is where Dr. Hansen and “activist” Bill McKibben want the world to go. Even more absurd.
Half of any ‘excess emissions’ go straight into the sea. That fact has to be used in any ‘what if’ calculations being made about the atmosphere. So, in fact, your calculation has to be adjusted, to get 361 ppm; and this is so close to 350 ppm that I mightsuspect that the 923 billion figure was INVENTED to pan out like that! On second thoughts, nobody in the ‘climate mob’ has the nous to be that clever, or, indeed, has any idea of how the physical world really works.
The climate mob has completely lost the scientific argument. Which does not stop their onward march to complete dominance of the ‘minds’ of the decision makers in the West.
For some reason I thought of the book “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrel Huff, published in 1954 by a journalist, not a Statistician.
Perhaps if that graph above were to be also presented as a 1.1% of world statistics metric, it might point out the sheer stupidity of the claim.
Great book and you can read it free online.
Click to access HowToLieWithStatistics.pdf
You want to ask them what will happen when fossil fuels are phased out? They can’t – they can’t even work out what is happening now. Don’t assign them with too much intelligence, in fact, don’t credit them with any.
Paul says: “What the far left promoters of this tosh would like to see is the shutting down of all fossil fuel producers, as part of their New World Order. Maybe they would like to tell us what our lives will be like when this happens!”
Yuval Noah Harari, the “prophet” of the World Economic Forum already has….you will be drugged and playing video games. BTW has a 2002 PhD from Oxford University………
Boo to Oxford!
Says this Cambridge man.
Not that Cambridge is any great shakes. Boo to Wadham!
What is missing in all of this debate is global emissions . . . everything we buy comes from somewhere . . . We just pushed our emissions away from home . . . The Planet is NOT cleaner . . . he emissions are just moved to places that do not care as much as we do . . . Things like Neo dymium boron the magnets in wind turbines and electric motors are ILLEGAL to produce in western countries ! We know they are bad ! We invented them . . . . Time to put scrubbers on our smokestacks and Screw CO2
Even discussing who emits what and in what quantities is to concede the field. When there is no problem in the first place, all of that is irrelevant. Better to shout out ‘So what?’ I am not saying there is not massive industrial pollution of all kinds that needs to be addressed; just that the gas they choose to address is vital to the health of all living things, the very opposite of a pollutant.
Indeed.
‘the world’s major carbon polluters’ is just stupid.
They were giving off CO2 as they said it. Human breath contains 40,000 ppm CO2.
For a normal, healthy human that’s about half a tonne per year.
“Maybe they would like to tell us what our lives will be like when this happens!”
Dark, short and brutal.
Are Greenpeace and FoE going to blame the manufactures of matches and lighters for all the world’s cases of arson?
Same lack of critical thinking.
Sorry if this has been brought up before but has anyone noticed that the CET has been fiddled with? It’s been a while but I wanted to look at the CET chart this year and the link is broken. The long running average is no longer showing two identical peaks since 1990 (with the exception of this years figures), it now shows one peak a dip and then an unbroken peak. Funny how those ‘corrections’ always result in more warming. Last wayback machine copy was September last year
http://web.archive.org/web/20220615000000*/https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
But look at it now
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Clearly the early version didn’t agree with the computer games – er, sorry – “climate models” and had to be homogenised.
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
~ Prof. Chris Folland ~ (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research)
I mean, who would take notice of a £10 thermometer reading when you had a £100,000,000 computer game to play with?
This is getting to be rather like reading 1984 every day.
I too looked today at the CET and was surprised by the positive anomaly for what seems to have been a somewwhat cool May, provisionally at 1.9 Celsius. But I also noticed that the 30 year reference period is still 1961 to 1990. Surely the Met office should now have moved to 1991 to 2020?
I am a CET watcher (admittedly in Scotland but there is a high correlation between CET and Scottish temps although I admit that there can be low correlation month to month). Now May up here in South Scotland, latitude of Hexham, has been really quite cold. Fruit and veg in garden are way behind, the best thermometer, so I was astonished to see the May anomaly for CET. Did you guys in England have a sneaky heat wave?
Paul, I am an avid consumer of all you wise words. This may not be the right place to pose a question but what do you have to say about Chemtrails? I have been increasingly aware of them over quiet, rural Shropshire. Are they legal, who is in control, what is the real purpose and what precisely do they contain? Surely what’s up there comes down here eventually.
Chemtrails are conspiracy nonsense. They don’t exist.
Contrails are simply condensation and ice crystal tracks from aircraft at high altitude. They are benign.
Neil,
Try this:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scientists-address-chemtrail-theory_n_57b3a14ee4b0edfa80da2ffc
Neil Sherry is a baiting troll …..
They contain precisely the same thing as the clouds – water droplets.
And that’s all.
The media, the green loons, the politicians tell me that CO2 is bad man bad. Nature disagrees and so do I, it’s a win win.
The 100 companies aren’t responsible for the emissions. The users of their products are. If you don’t want to live the life of a starving peasant eking out an existence on foraged food, accept that it is your lifestyle that is creating the CO2. It’s called personal responsibility, something all too lacking nowadays.
These are the same nutters who demand lockdowns, then use Amazon to have everything delivered to them, then rant that the value of Amazin has increased.
They are spoilt, greedy children who want everything to be as they demand.
If your headline had read, ‘100, so called, scientists found responsible for 71% of alarmist propaganda that gets broadcast in the mainstream media’, you’d be right Paul. Starters for ten anybody?
I would still like to hear of one single thing in anyone’s life that is not touched directly or indirectly fossil energy in its production or getting into that life.
Off topic, but I’ve just looked at BBC news headlines and it shows just how bad it is by the first item being some dire crap about Johnny Depp.
Heaven help us!
These people are just weird conspiracy theorists who think businesses get together to force us to have things we shouldn’t want.
mark harvey imarcus333@gmail.com
>