Okay done. Now that I have eliminated this here my contribution to CO2 emissions, what do we do about the 100 companies that cause 70% of global CO2 emissions? Or is that no longer an issue once my car is taken out of circulation?
Transportation is a quarter of global emissions, with passenger vehicles making up half of that number and is only getting larger as more people in the world decide they need a car.
The number you’re looking for is 20 companies making up 30% of emissions. They’re almost exclusively oil companies, with more than half of them being state owned enterprises. Reduce the need for oil and you reduce the amount they pollute.
So, how do you do that?
Personal vehicles are the most flexible in terms of emissions. Increasing the usability of public transportation has a direct correlation with the number of vehicles on the road. Sure, people out in the middle of nowhere need a vehicle and nobody is looking to take that from them, but you could HALF the number of people in the US with a car if cities had proper public transport or were as walkable as they were barely 80 years ago.
The private sector is more difficult. We’d need to rebuild our train infrastructure that has been gutted and raided by our rail companies in order to get trucks off the interstate. Coincidentally, that would get MORE people off the road since you wouldn’t need a car to go between cities.
Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that we’re incapable of solving multiple problems at the same time. We can make cars unnecessarily (not GET RID of them) while also cutting emissions in other areas.
Make no mistake, we do need to address other areas, but cars are an easy target that would reduce tons of emissions and increase people’s quality of life as well. Cars are a massive waste of space and a huge ongoing drain on taxpayer dollars for very little benefit when you compare it to the alternatives.
I am not saying that we are incapable of solving multiple problems at once, I am saying that we are incapable of solving the main problem.
I was not joking when I said that my car is not a factor. My individual part in this regard is done. But the point remains that by considering the main sources of pollution too “inflexible” to tackle, it seems that we are debating about which colour to best repaint a sinking ship here while being utterly, completely powerless to address the big hole in the hull.
So in conclusion, I’ll now pat myself on the back for having done my part while sailing this doomed (but [for some at least] highly profitable) planet to hell in a handbasket.
Absolutely right that it has to be legislated by Government and enforced. Pricing in externalities is important, but at the very least they should be accounted for/reported on honestly (and also not over-inflated).
Consumerism is complicated, of course. It is often manufactured, one way or another. From lack of viable or convenient alternatives (eg. public transport / safe walking and bicycle paths), to straight up advertising and social pressures, to incentives or requirements from above (eg. job, laws, etc.).
If we assume that you’ll have a car even if they become unnecessary, then sure, you’ve done all you’re willing to do. However there are tens of millions of people that would happily stop driving if it weren’t absolutely required to function. They have not finished doing their part. That includes me.
Yes the BBC article is correct too. Just because CO2 emissions per km travelled are high doesn’t mean they’re statistically relevant in terms of total emissions. All aviation at 1.9% is basically not a meaningful amount of CO2 if you need a 50% reduction.
When weighted for KMs travelled a riding lawn mower is probably worse than a private jet by that logic.
1.9% is significant and meaningful, objectively, mathematically and statistically. It might not feel high to you. But that is your feeling.
And I suspect you are assuming that the path, you think uses the best strategy, to reach 50% reduction on emissions is the only available. Reducing emissions of the persons with most emissions is a valid priority, and these high emitters likely include aviation emmlissions.
1.9% for people to go back to crossing the Atlantic on the titanic … No more air freight. No more sunny vacations for anyone. That’s all aviation gone. Now you find me the other 50% on that pie chart and picture the miserable world you’re advocating for. Then realise no logical developing country is going to comply with that plan as that means freezing them at their current level and that this isn’t a fixable problem through reductions … And chasing several thousand high emissions worth individuals is an utter waste of time … Let’s just agree to disagree I suppose.
I mean… they’re making things for us generally. I don’t think they’re emitting recreationally. Look at a pie chart of total emissions and figure what you could cut to hit 50%. Do away with all transportation… Boats planes etc and you’re not even close.
If the average person cut out 100% of their carbon emissions for the rest on their life, they’d save, on average, the amount of CO2 that industry creates in ~1 second. Our personal emissions are but a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme. Change is best brought about by voting both metaphocally with our wallets and literally with our ballot papers.
The industries produces CO2 to provide us goods and services. Car is one of them; not using a car, not only I don’t produce gazes directly (or less), but I also don’t use something “the industry” produced CO2 for.
Why is industry creating carbon? They’re building the things we need and generating our power. Probably 100% of industrial CO2 emissions are conducted for us. This is just our emissions upstream from the things we consume directly.
Also if you cut 100% of your emissions you’d be dead. Breathing emits CO2.
Which companies are those? Coca Cola, who make your drinks that you drink? Ford, who make the car you drive? One of the oil companies who fuels your car? A company that makes the clothes you wear?
It all comes down to consumers in the end - we are the end point of the chain and these mythical 100 companies exist for us. Stop ducking the issue.
Ok, so give us your plan to stop billions of people from buying cars, clothes and cola.
I, personally, would love to hear it.
As a consumer, i cant find ways to make the products i buy cause less environmental damage and i cant just stop buying clothes, and theres only one place to buy them
or food. And i can only get that from one place.
I cant suddenly not own a car, or else how do i get to work? Public transport isnt an option where i live. and i dont have a choice in how that car is made.
There are alternatives out there for all of these but they are significantly more expensive and i already live on a tight budget and cant afford to suddenly increase my spending.
If you cant see how that traps consumers and the change has to come from above then you are lost
Also theres nothing ‘mythical’ about the companies that produce 70% of the emmisions.
Thats not even the point of the argument. We are expected to separate our waste into special bins or buy electric cars (soooo expensive) or produce less waste and reduce our individual emmisions but its pointless. we can only affect 30% of the global emissions and ee wont get our individual emmisions to zero so it wont even be 30% reduced if we make all the changes we need to.
This isnt an us or them situation, companies need to be held accountable for their emissions and be forced to reduce them. They will always follow the money, consumers will get used to whatever options they are given.
I feel like bikes are a good alternative to cars. At least to address one of your points about getting to work. Even an ebike has far less total emissions than a car… Assuming people actually use them instead of just leaving it in the garage
I appreciate that i could be a fringe case hut an ebike would turn my 30-50minute commute into 1-1.4 hour journey along a dangerous road with no cycle lanes or pavement for 90% of the journey.
This would work for alot of people but not for me unfortunately
Just like all other environmental legislation Chinese imports will just fill the void. They use mostly coal.
What if alternatives for heavy emitters like steel and concrete producers do not exist at this time… Just dictating targets might be unproductive.
Companies emissions are exclusively to provide you the consume with goods and services. Companies will respond to the marker dictated by the consumer. Really we are also driving the 70%…
Companies will respond to the marker dictated by the consumer.
This is a lie that you’ve been told by econ 101. Companies will manipulate the markets through lobbying and anticompetitive behaviours so that the consumer has no other choice.
For instance, the suburbs are not a natural outworking of market desires, they are mandated by legislation that prevents medium rise and high density urban development, which necessitates cars and also massively overloads the roads so you have terrible traffic.
This wasn’t a natural outworking of a market, but a deliberate push by capitalists to destroy public transit, build more roads, and lock you the consumer into a world in which you actually do not have any choice. This, not coincidentally, also creates the most wasteful possible way to organise our cities and transport ourselves - individualised cars and dwellings with enormous demands on space. More wasteful systems are as a rule better for capitalists because they create the largest possible market for consumables and redundant equipment.
Yeah if you want to fix zoning to increase density that’s a local government issue. I personally like having a car and large house outside of the city. I’m absolutely in support of government fixing multi residential zoning … Would have loved better options when I was younger. I’m sure a lot of developers would gladly respond to those market forces if given the option … Do you think it’s nimbys preventing that or capitalists?
We live under capitalism. That means, explicitly, that capital has all the power. To the extent nimbyism is a real problem that’s because it’s been stoked by capitalist propaganda and fueled by the artificial fear that their property prices will go down. Homeowners have been taught to think in those terms rather than about what will actually affect their quality of life because the nuance-flattening logic of the market permeates our thinking.
You show me a single home owner who’s enthusiastic about having a large multi-unit built next door … I wouldn’t be happy personally.
If you think capital has all the power look at TC energy’s keystone pipeline. Look at LNG facility approval in Canada. No shortage of capital there but those projects are dead.
If there’s demand for something (housing) markets will solve that problem you just get out of the way and let them. Capitalists would love to sell the same acre of developed realeatate to more than one person. Remember - they’re greedy.
What an absolutely wild example to cite for your argument. The Keystone pipeline is a perfect example of how capital and the state have all of the institutional power. Protestors have lived on site for years, being brutalised by thugs working for the state on behalf of capital. They have given up enormous chunks of their lives, meanwhile the execs and politicians organising their brutalisation do it with meetings and emails. Only after years of disruptive action will the state finally step in to change something, and even then the story isn’t over.
It is an awful project that illegally siezed land and is devastating to the environment both locally and globally, but fossil fuel companies want to make money so the state will defend their bullshit until it becomes obvious that it’s a complete wash.
People power works, but it is an uphill fight against entrenched power structures.
If there’s demand for something (housing) markets will solve that problem you just get out of the way and let them.
This is just an article of faith. The invisible hand of the market is the capitalist replacement for the divine right of kings and I am yet to see any examples of it really working. I’ve explained how it’s not the case but you don’t seem to feel any need to rebut anything I’ve said, you’re just repeating your beliefs as if that means anything. I mean, cool opinion but you’re not really making an argument.
And anyway, if you really believed this then you would support the removal of restrictive zoning laws, which is one of the main things I would advocate to start addressing this problem.
How bout making government accountable for the people instead of relying on a state machine that consistently needing funds from the lobbying? We have to utilise our collective power to enforce our will onto the goverment, isn’t that how democracy works? Sure it is hardly significant for one’s contribution to the emission reduction, but we still have to voice out our concern on the matters. This particular post is one of such effort. There’s no shame on doubting OP on pushing their voice on the issue, but this community is dedicated for such problem, of course you’d expect post like this to raise the awareness.
You’re both right. We need massive systemic change, but that’s not an excuse to not do what you can in your own life. It’s really easy to get disillusioned (hell, I am half the time) but defeatism gets us nowhere.
sort of, but also not. Sure, those companies are funded by us, but they lobby governments and shit so we NEED to buy their stuff. I wouldn’t think GM would be such a big company if they didn’t get rid of all the streetcars for example
Okay done. Now that I have eliminated this here my contribution to CO2 emissions, what do we do about the 100 companies that cause 70% of global CO2 emissions? Or is that no longer an issue once my car is taken out of circulation?
Transportation is a quarter of global emissions, with passenger vehicles making up half of that number and is only getting larger as more people in the world decide they need a car.
The number you’re looking for is 20 companies making up 30% of emissions. They’re almost exclusively oil companies, with more than half of them being state owned enterprises. Reduce the need for oil and you reduce the amount they pollute.
So, how do you do that?
Personal vehicles are the most flexible in terms of emissions. Increasing the usability of public transportation has a direct correlation with the number of vehicles on the road. Sure, people out in the middle of nowhere need a vehicle and nobody is looking to take that from them, but you could HALF the number of people in the US with a car if cities had proper public transport or were as walkable as they were barely 80 years ago.
The private sector is more difficult. We’d need to rebuild our train infrastructure that has been gutted and raided by our rail companies in order to get trucks off the interstate. Coincidentally, that would get MORE people off the road since you wouldn’t need a car to go between cities.
Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that we’re incapable of solving multiple problems at the same time. We can make cars unnecessarily (not GET RID of them) while also cutting emissions in other areas.
Make no mistake, we do need to address other areas, but cars are an easy target that would reduce tons of emissions and increase people’s quality of life as well. Cars are a massive waste of space and a huge ongoing drain on taxpayer dollars for very little benefit when you compare it to the alternatives.
I am not saying that we are incapable of solving multiple problems at once, I am saying that we are incapable of solving the main problem.
I was not joking when I said that my car is not a factor. My individual part in this regard is done. But the point remains that by considering the main sources of pollution too “inflexible” to tackle, it seems that we are debating about which colour to best repaint a sinking ship here while being utterly, completely powerless to address the big hole in the hull.
So in conclusion, I’ll now pat myself on the back for having done my part while sailing this doomed (but [for some at least] highly profitable) planet to hell in a handbasket.
Has to be done via government. Government action is how to address many industrial practices.
But also, when you say “70% by industry”, that ignores that industry is producing stuff for us. They don’t exist without a consumer.
Absolutely right that it has to be legislated by Government and enforced. Pricing in externalities is important, but at the very least they should be accounted for/reported on honestly (and also not over-inflated).
Consumerism is complicated, of course. It is often manufactured, one way or another. From lack of viable or convenient alternatives (eg. public transport / safe walking and bicycle paths), to straight up advertising and social pressures, to incentives or requirements from above (eg. job, laws, etc.).
If we assume that you’ll have a car even if they become unnecessary, then sure, you’ve done all you’re willing to do. However there are tens of millions of people that would happily stop driving if it weren’t absolutely required to function. They have not finished doing their part. That includes me.
While we’re in cycles, the elites are riding in their luxurious car, and flying in their private jets producing all the emissions the world needs.
Yet! We have to deprive ourselves from vehicles, and they be enjoying life.
Private aviation is basically nothing in terms of emissions. Is pretty gross though.
Can you please support your statement with a reference to the source of that data?
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
All aviation is 1.9% … Private would be a vanishingly small amount of that.
That link does not have information on the contribution of private aviation. You are assuming it.
In this BBC article on What’s the climate impact of private jets you can read that
"Emissions per kilometre travelled [using an airplane] are known to be significantly worse than any other form of transport.
(…)
Private jets generally produce significantly more emissions per passenger than commercial flights."
Yes the BBC article is correct too. Just because CO2 emissions per km travelled are high doesn’t mean they’re statistically relevant in terms of total emissions. All aviation at 1.9% is basically not a meaningful amount of CO2 if you need a 50% reduction.
When weighted for KMs travelled a riding lawn mower is probably worse than a private jet by that logic.
1.9% is significant and meaningful, objectively, mathematically and statistically. It might not feel high to you. But that is your feeling.
And I suspect you are assuming that the path, you think uses the best strategy, to reach 50% reduction on emissions is the only available. Reducing emissions of the persons with most emissions is a valid priority, and these high emitters likely include aviation emmlissions.
1.9% for people to go back to crossing the Atlantic on the titanic … No more air freight. No more sunny vacations for anyone. That’s all aviation gone. Now you find me the other 50% on that pie chart and picture the miserable world you’re advocating for. Then realise no logical developing country is going to comply with that plan as that means freezing them at their current level and that this isn’t a fixable problem through reductions … And chasing several thousand high emissions worth individuals is an utter waste of time … Let’s just agree to disagree I suppose.
If you already knew the answer why did you ask?
Did I knew the source that supported the comment of /u/malaph, no, I didn’t. I don’t have premonition abilities.
Are you okay?
I mean… they’re making things for us generally. I don’t think they’re emitting recreationally. Look at a pie chart of total emissions and figure what you could cut to hit 50%. Do away with all transportation… Boats planes etc and you’re not even close.
If the average person cut out 100% of their carbon emissions for the rest on their life, they’d save, on average, the amount of CO2 that industry creates in ~1 second. Our personal emissions are but a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme. Change is best brought about by voting both metaphocally with our wallets and literally with our ballot papers.
The industries produces CO2 to provide us goods and services. Car is one of them; not using a car, not only I don’t produce gazes directly (or less), but I also don’t use something “the industry” produced CO2 for.
Why is industry creating carbon? They’re building the things we need and generating our power. Probably 100% of industrial CO2 emissions are conducted for us. This is just our emissions upstream from the things we consume directly.
Also if you cut 100% of your emissions you’d be dead. Breathing emits CO2.
But now you can ride around on your high horse and look at all the scum ruining our planet with their cars.
We are never gonna have a chance against climate change if we try to plead to the individual to live a “greener” life.
Well, we are also never gonna have a chance against climate change if the individual didn’t help.
Both need to put in effort.
Which companies are those? Coca Cola, who make your drinks that you drink? Ford, who make the car you drive? One of the oil companies who fuels your car? A company that makes the clothes you wear?
It all comes down to consumers in the end - we are the end point of the chain and these mythical 100 companies exist for us. Stop ducking the issue.
Ok, so give us your plan to stop billions of people from buying cars, clothes and cola.
I, personally, would love to hear it.
As a consumer, i cant find ways to make the products i buy cause less environmental damage and i cant just stop buying clothes, and theres only one place to buy them
or food. And i can only get that from one place.
I cant suddenly not own a car, or else how do i get to work? Public transport isnt an option where i live. and i dont have a choice in how that car is made.
There are alternatives out there for all of these but they are significantly more expensive and i already live on a tight budget and cant afford to suddenly increase my spending.
If you cant see how that traps consumers and the change has to come from above then you are lost
Also theres nothing ‘mythical’ about the companies that produce 70% of the emmisions.
Thats not even the point of the argument. We are expected to separate our waste into special bins or buy electric cars (soooo expensive) or produce less waste and reduce our individual emmisions but its pointless. we can only affect 30% of the global emissions and ee wont get our individual emmisions to zero so it wont even be 30% reduced if we make all the changes we need to.
This isnt an us or them situation, companies need to be held accountable for their emissions and be forced to reduce them. They will always follow the money, consumers will get used to whatever options they are given.
I feel like bikes are a good alternative to cars. At least to address one of your points about getting to work. Even an ebike has far less total emissions than a car… Assuming people actually use them instead of just leaving it in the garage
I appreciate that i could be a fringe case hut an ebike would turn my 30-50minute commute into 1-1.4 hour journey along a dangerous road with no cycle lanes or pavement for 90% of the journey.
This would work for alot of people but not for me unfortunately
Bikes are only good for small distances.
What a better alternative for cars would be is public transport.
Just imagine if all the money and time we put into building a highway network would have been put into public transport instead.
How many people live more than 10 miles from work? I know I never have.
90% of people can ride bikes and the rest can take public transit.
I live in the Midwest too, my city is really spread out, but biking is still possible. It would even be enjoyable if there were feewer cars
Just like all other environmental legislation Chinese imports will just fill the void. They use mostly coal.
What if alternatives for heavy emitters like steel and concrete producers do not exist at this time… Just dictating targets might be unproductive.
Companies emissions are exclusively to provide you the consume with goods and services. Companies will respond to the marker dictated by the consumer. Really we are also driving the 70%…
This is a lie that you’ve been told by econ 101. Companies will manipulate the markets through lobbying and anticompetitive behaviours so that the consumer has no other choice.
For instance, the suburbs are not a natural outworking of market desires, they are mandated by legislation that prevents medium rise and high density urban development, which necessitates cars and also massively overloads the roads so you have terrible traffic.
This wasn’t a natural outworking of a market, but a deliberate push by capitalists to destroy public transit, build more roads, and lock you the consumer into a world in which you actually do not have any choice. This, not coincidentally, also creates the most wasteful possible way to organise our cities and transport ourselves - individualised cars and dwellings with enormous demands on space. More wasteful systems are as a rule better for capitalists because they create the largest possible market for consumables and redundant equipment.
Yeah if you want to fix zoning to increase density that’s a local government issue. I personally like having a car and large house outside of the city. I’m absolutely in support of government fixing multi residential zoning … Would have loved better options when I was younger. I’m sure a lot of developers would gladly respond to those market forces if given the option … Do you think it’s nimbys preventing that or capitalists?
We live under capitalism. That means, explicitly, that capital has all the power. To the extent nimbyism is a real problem that’s because it’s been stoked by capitalist propaganda and fueled by the artificial fear that their property prices will go down. Homeowners have been taught to think in those terms rather than about what will actually affect their quality of life because the nuance-flattening logic of the market permeates our thinking.
You show me a single home owner who’s enthusiastic about having a large multi-unit built next door … I wouldn’t be happy personally.
If you think capital has all the power look at TC energy’s keystone pipeline. Look at LNG facility approval in Canada. No shortage of capital there but those projects are dead.
If there’s demand for something (housing) markets will solve that problem you just get out of the way and let them. Capitalists would love to sell the same acre of developed realeatate to more than one person. Remember - they’re greedy.
What an absolutely wild example to cite for your argument. The Keystone pipeline is a perfect example of how capital and the state have all of the institutional power. Protestors have lived on site for years, being brutalised by thugs working for the state on behalf of capital. They have given up enormous chunks of their lives, meanwhile the execs and politicians organising their brutalisation do it with meetings and emails. Only after years of disruptive action will the state finally step in to change something, and even then the story isn’t over.
It is an awful project that illegally siezed land and is devastating to the environment both locally and globally, but fossil fuel companies want to make money so the state will defend their bullshit until it becomes obvious that it’s a complete wash.
People power works, but it is an uphill fight against entrenched power structures.
This is just an article of faith. The invisible hand of the market is the capitalist replacement for the divine right of kings and I am yet to see any examples of it really working. I’ve explained how it’s not the case but you don’t seem to feel any need to rebut anything I’ve said, you’re just repeating your beliefs as if that means anything. I mean, cool opinion but you’re not really making an argument.
And anyway, if you really believed this then you would support the removal of restrictive zoning laws, which is one of the main things I would advocate to start addressing this problem.
How bout making government accountable for the people instead of relying on a state machine that consistently needing funds from the lobbying? We have to utilise our collective power to enforce our will onto the goverment, isn’t that how democracy works? Sure it is hardly significant for one’s contribution to the emission reduction, but we still have to voice out our concern on the matters. This particular post is one of such effort. There’s no shame on doubting OP on pushing their voice on the issue, but this community is dedicated for such problem, of course you’d expect post like this to raise the awareness.
You’re both right. We need massive systemic change, but that’s not an excuse to not do what you can in your own life. It’s really easy to get disillusioned (hell, I am half the time) but defeatism gets us nowhere.
sort of, but also not. Sure, those companies are funded by us, but they lobby governments and shit so we NEED to buy their stuff. I wouldn’t think GM would be such a big company if they didn’t get rid of all the streetcars for example
Now stop consuming animals.