Just 57 companies linked to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions since 2016
By Paul Homewood
As usual the Guardian puts the cart in front of the horse!
A mere 57 oil, gas, coal and cement producers are directly linked to 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since the 2016 Paris climate agreement, a study has shown.
This powerful cohort of state-controlled corporations and shareholder-owned multinationals are the leading drivers of the climate crisis, according to the Carbon Majors Database, which is compiled by world-renowned researchers.
Although governments pledged in Paris to cut greenhouse gases, the analysis reveals that most mega-producers increased their output of fossil fuels and related emissions in the seven years after that climate agreement, compared with the seven years before.
In the database of 122 of the world’s biggest historical climate polluters, the researchers found that 65% of state entities and 55% of private-sector companies had scaled up production.
During this period, the biggest investor-owned contributor to emissions was ExxonMobil of the United States, which was linked to 3.6 gigatonnes of CO2 over seven years, or 1.4% of the global total. Close behind were Shell, BP, Chevron and TotalEnergies, each of which was associated with at least 1% of global emissions.
The most striking trend, however, was the surging growth of emissions related to state and state-owned producers, particularly in the Asian coal sector.
Do they really not understand that these fossil fuel companies don’t emit anything. It is everybody else who burns the fuel that is responsible for emissions.
So simply shutting down oilfields is not the issue, as the Guardian implies.
It’s what the world is supposed to when that happens.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The Grauniad understands very little. It relies on the “Carbon Majors Database”. There is no indication of who these “world-renowned researchers” are. Clearly they must be world-renowned idiots.
oh, I am sure the Guardian understands full well the consequences of de-industrialisation. They expect it will bring forth the authoritarian socialism they want.
Well Hamas, Isis, Taleban are all World renowned.
Most of this tosh comes from the usual green blob, unless its a security story when it comes from the CIA, MI6 propaganda desks promoting war for their arms making friends.
And of course we can do without any of them can’t we?
The usual environmentalist tosh from the Guardian.
‘Climate scientists’ aren’t very bright.
1.5C – safe
1.6C – dire consequences
A tenth of a degree. From 287.0K to 287.1K will be ‘dire.’ I dare say there is no human who can discern the difference of 0.1 degree.
It’s the same old tune. Fund drive time? From August 2016:
https://www.science.org/content/article/just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says
Thats 1.5C measured by class 5 Met stations. So 1.5C give or take 5C.
. . . and you’d have to believe they have global temperature data from 1850.
So it’s give or take 10C.
Philosophy question: Is it better to have data from a class 5 station (today) than no station at all (1850)?
Gamecock says no station at all, because the class 5 station data causes you to think you actually know something.
And then we have the gall of ‘climate scientists’ using a decimal point in their wild ass guesses. It’s all a false precision fallacy.
And most of it is gridding so give or take a couple of thousand miles.
‘the leading drivers of the climate crisis‘ — cramming in the fantasies there.
The 1.5 deg K rise was chosen by a gang of “experts” selected by “climate scientists”, it was not subject to independent scrutiny, as such claims ought to be. There is no evidence that the world will collapse if the temperature rises. The historical evidence is that it will later fall again anyway. The anomaly value is of course inflated by UHI.
The anomoly value alone is a cheat, exaggerating the extent of change.
The Climate Stripes from Reading Uni’ are classic exaggerated misrepresentation, but they make for pretty colours and an eye-catching image so have been a runaway success.
They apply the full range of colours from coldest blue to hottest red to a tiny temperature range anomaly.
If they were accurate they’d apply that colour range across the entire hottest and coldest temperature range.
134F at Death valley and -128F at Vostock is a whopping 262F spread.
Applying colours across a tiny temperature anomaly would mean all the stripes are almost the same colour! That’s the end of the ‘climate crisis’, no ‘climate emergency’ to drive global pseudo-scientific political fraud and no recognition for Ed Hawkins either, and we can’t have that.
Excellent point, CR!
After further review, there’s a problem, CR.
20°C would be red.
No mention of the billions of people who actually use the products and thus generate the greenhouse gasses?
And no mention that they have lifted 80% of the world’s population out of extreme poverty. Man’s GREATEST accomplishment.
This is so stupid it’s painful to read.
Nobody reads the Guardian to be informed, which is just as well…..
Unfortunately there are stupid enough people around who do think the Guardian does inform them with actual facts.
Assuming that our consumptions of oil is solely due to the marketing efforts of these companies and others, if we shut them down do we burn our forests to meet our energy needs?
No, you just do without energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
I feel obliged to tell all my friends on here that my days of contributing pearls of wisdom are numbered. I am only able to write by lying, since ‘mikejackson516@outlook.com’ no longer exists and that is the only email address which WordPress will allow me to use; my French address (jacksonmichael@orange.fr) and my longstanding (15 years!) personal domain and email (mikejackson@pitsgate.co.uk) WordPress simply rejects out of hand.
So very shortly, unless I can finally persuade WordPress to get off my back, I will be forced to withdraw gracefully. It’s been fun.
So why is everyone blaming the car user ?
Mr Jackson: I for one appreciate your ‘pearls of wisdom’ so I hope your E address problem can be sorted satisfactorily. Another Brexit “success” ?.