Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says - Sensationalist Headlines

[URL]https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change[/URL] [QUOTE]Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to a new report. The [URL="https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240"]Carbon Majors Report[/URL] (pdf) “pinpoints how a relatively small set of fossil fuel producers may hold the key to systemic change on carbon emissions,” says Pedro Faria, technical director at environmental non-profit CDP, which published the report in collaboration with the Climate Accountability Institute. Traditionally, large scale greenhouse gas emissions data is collected at a national level but this report focuses on fossil fuel producers. Compiled from a database of publicly available emissions figures, it is intended as the first in a series of publications to highlight the role companies and their investors could play in tackling climate change. The report found that more than half of global industrial emissions since 1988 – the year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established – can be traced to just 25 corporate and state-owned entities. The scale of historical emissions associated with these fossil fuel producers is large enough to have contributed significantly to climate change, according to the report. [/QUOTE]

Skimming through the pdf, but that's not really a surprising statement when you consider who the producers are.

and just 100 people account for half of this world's material wealth. truely we live in a grand gilded age. [editline]10th July 2017[/editline] reading down the list its actually quite suprising that there appears to be only a couple large petrochemical manufacturers and none of the world's largest chemical manufacturers at all made the list which is rather impressive for climate change even as their enviromental records haven't been too stellar over the years

Scientists discover the pareto distribution, dozens shocked.

now we have a list of people to eat during the endtimes :ok:

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52455910]Scientists discover the pareto distribution, dozens shocked.[/QUOTE] Scientists observe [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle"]pareto principle[/URL]-like manifestation in modern socioeconomic problem; Facepunch user fails to grasp the purpose or significance of these observations beyond making a shallow attempt at a zinger; no-one surprised.

[QUOTE=Furioso;52456040]Scientists observe [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle"]pareto principle[/URL]-like manifestation in modern socioeconomic problem; Facepunch user fails to grasp the purpose or significance of these observations beyond making a shallow attempt at a zinger; no-one surprised.[/QUOTE] smarmy know it all fails to know that the pareto distribution is specifically an economic/output model for distribution of productivity, wealth, goods etc in a given system, for which which the pereto principal was named. Onlookers reported as mildly confused as to what he was trying to accomplish. I was just pointing out that that kind of distribution isn't a novel observation. If anything, it's your base level assumption for distribution of whatever you're trying to measure in any given system. What exactly are you trying to say here?

It's kind of to be expected that when production volume of stuff is distributed this way, so will be the pollution. The real interesting analysis would be to look for companies the positions of which in the ladders strongly don't match; is either they pollute disproportionally more than they produce in value or the other way around.

[QUOTE=Furioso;52456040]Scientists observe [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle"]pareto principle[/URL]-like manifestation in modern socioeconomic problem; Facepunch user fails to grasp the purpose or significance of these observations beyond making a shallow attempt at a zinger; no-one surprised.[/QUOTE] I think he was more getting at the fact that we already basically know this? Climate change is very obviously due to large business, this news is not shocking, it's just a statistical confirmation of already existing common knowledge.

joke is fucking dead stop now please

Here's an interesting point for an otherwise boring topic; because there are so few greenhouse gas emitters that are responsible for a large majority of emissions, it makes carbon emissions very suitable as a tax base. But not for raising revenue; a carbon tax would need to be offset by cuts to income or consumption taxes, so that taxes won't become too burdensome for families. Rather, because it's very hard to hide carbon emissions or shift them to tax havens, it makes for a tax base that's almost as immobile as even land. And because reporting carbon emissions isn't as complicated as reporting taxable income, it's cheaper for both taxpayers to file their taxes, and the tax office for collecting taxes. Taxes could be levied on each tonne of emissions; something which has already been implemented in some countries. Was tried a few years ago in Australia as well. It's expected that the tax burden of the carbon tax would be passed on to consumers through higher prices for virtually everything that was created with, or provided from, greenhouse emissions. That creates a price signal for consumers to choose products made directly or indirectly with fewer carbon emissions, such as renewable energy, as they would be cheaper but they would also be better for the environment. Of course, the carbon tax would still have an effect on the consumer, hence the accompanying cuts to income or consumption taxes. But in short, it makes it even-more economically-worthwhile to invest in renewable energy.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52456141]smarmy know it all fails to know that the pareto distribution is specifically an economic/output model for distribution of productivity, wealth, goods etc in a given system, for which which the pereto principal was named. Onlookers reported as mildly confused as to what he was trying to accomplish. I was just pointing out that that kind of distribution isn't a novel observation. If anything, it's your base level assumption for distribution of whatever you're trying to measure in any given system. [/QUOTE] oh [I]jeeeeez[/I] There's a lot more to it than "hey, 100 companies do most of the bad shit to our planet!" The [URL="https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240"]report[/URL] in the article doesn't just make that observation and then say, ok, that's all we got, thanks for reading! There's discussion of international/diplomatic influences, investor/shareholder power in those companies, implications for the future including potential outcomes and possible solutions, etc. It's also not unreasonable to say that this report is one of the most comprehensive of its kind, because few others have compiled such an exhausting list/analysis of so many international companies regarding their individual greenhouse emissions. [QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52456141]What exactly are you trying to say here?[/QUOTE] That dismissive attitudes suck?

[QUOTE=BF;52456528]Here's an interesting point for an otherwise boring topic; because there are so few greenhouse gas emitters that are responsible for a large majority of emissions, it makes carbon emissions very suitable as a tax base. But not for raising revenue; a carbon tax would need to be offset by cuts to income or consumption taxes, so that taxes won't become too burdensome for families. Rather, because it's very hard to hide carbon emissions or shift them to tax havens, it makes for a tax base that's almost as immobile as even land. And because reporting carbon emissions isn't as complicated as reporting taxable income, it's cheaper for both taxpayers to file their taxes, and the tax office for collecting taxes. Taxes could be levied on each tonne of emissions; something which has already been implemented in some countries. Was tried a few years ago in Australia as well. It's expected that the tax burden of the carbon tax would be passed on to consumers through higher prices for virtually everything that was created with, or provided from, greenhouse emissions. That creates a price signal for consumers to choose products made directly or indirectly with fewer carbon emissions, such as renewable energy, as they would be cheaper but they would also be better for the environment. Of course, the carbon tax would still have an effect on the consumer, hence the accompanying cuts to income or consumption taxes. But in short, it makes it even-more economically-worthwhile to invest in renewable energy.[/QUOTE] Or better still: we dont levy taxes that wont be paid by the company, rather by you and I when we buy necessities of life these companies produce while doing fuck all to actually drop emissions, instead we levy stricter enviroregs on these companies that get them to actually clean up their act. The only thing carbon taxes do is drive up the cost of living. These megacorps dont give a shit abiut johnny polar bear and will happily just shift the tax burden to us while changing nothing.

[QUOTE=TestECull;52456795]Or better still: we dont levy taxes that wont be paid by the company, rather by you and I when we buy necessities of life these companies produce while doing fuck all to actually drop emissions, instead we levy stricter enviroregs on these companies that get them to actually clean up their act. [b]The only thing carbon taxes do is drive up the cost of living. These megacorps dont give a shit abiut johnny polar bear and will happily just shift the tax burden to us while changing nothing.[/b][/QUOTE] This is literally the point of a carbon tax, it's actually expected that they'll pass on the tax to the consumers. Hence how it creates a price signal for consumers to choose goods and services which were made or provided from fewer carbon emissions, hence will have a lower price tag as less tax was paid. But of course, there will still be some burden on the consumers in the short term, hence accompanying cuts to income or consumption taxes so that the overall tax burden on consumers remains the same. Or you could have just read my post, so I didn't have to repeat myself.

[QUOTE=BF;52457293]This is literally the point of a carbon tax, it's actually expected that they'll pass on the tax to the consumers. Hence how it creates a price signal for consumers to choose goods and services which were made or provided from fewer carbon emissions, hence will have a lower price tag as less tax was paid. But of course, there will still be some burden on the consumers in the short term, hence accompanying cuts to income or consumption taxes so that the overall tax burden on consumers remains the same. Or you could have just read my post, so I didn't have to repeat myself.[/QUOTE] Yeah that wont work. those megacorps make literally everything we touch. Punishing the average joe is not the answer, which if you had bothered to read what I said you'd know. You and I dont have a choice. You'd be shocked to know how many different logos are all owned by the same CEO, how those same 100 companies produce pretty much everything on store shelves. The naive idea that 'oh people will buy the cheaper, greenly made product' falls apart pretty damn quick in the face of that realization, pllu, companies will happily continue to use 'its made by johnny polar bear friendlt processes' as an excuse to charge a premium like they already do now. You want real change on a tangible scale? Regulate co2 output directly. You want to make the poor even poorer while doing fuck all to save the icecaps? Carbon taxes.

[QUOTE=TestECull;52460772]Yeah that wont work. those megacorps make literally everything we touch. Punishing the average joe is not the answer, which if you had bothered to read what I said you'd know. You and I dont have a choice. You'd be shocked to know how many different logos are all owned by the same CEO, how those same 100 companies produce pretty much everything on store shelves. The naive idea that 'oh people will buy the cheaper, greenly made product' falls apart pretty damn quick in the face of that realization, pllu, companies will happily continue to use 'its made by johnny polar bear friendlt processes' as an excuse to charge a premium like they already do now. You want real change on a tangible scale? Regulate co2 output directly. You want to make the poor even poorer while doing fuck all to save the icecaps? Carbon taxes.[/QUOTE] I say we break up the megacorps

[QUOTE=TestECull;52460772]Yeah that wont work. those megacorps make literally everything we touch. Punishing the average joe is not the answer, which if you had bothered to read what I said you'd know. You and I dont have a choice. You'd be shocked to know how many different logos are all owned by the same CEO, how those same 100 companies produce pretty much everything on store shelves. The naive idea that 'oh people will buy the cheaper, greenly made product' falls apart pretty damn quick in the face of that realization, pllu, companies will happily continue to use 'its made by johnny polar bear friendlt processes' as an excuse to charge a premium like they already do now. You want real change on a tangible scale? Regulate co2 output directly. You want to make the poor even poorer while doing fuck all to save the icecaps? Carbon taxes.[/QUOTE] If the theory doesn't sit right with you, how would you like to see empirical results of when Australia had a carbon tax? [quote=Abstract]Australia’s carbon price has been in operation for two years. The electricity sector accounts for the majority of emissions covered under the scheme. This paper examines the impact of the carbon price on the electricity sector between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2014, focusing on the National Electricity Market (NEM). Over this period, electricity demand in the NEM declined by 3.8 per cent, the emissions intensity of electricity supply by 4.6 per cent, and overall emissions by 8.2 per cent, compared to the two-year period before the carbon price. We detail observable changes in power demand and supply mix, and estimate the quantitative effect of the effect of the carbon price. We estimate that the carbon price led to an average 10 per cent increase in nominal retail household electricity prices, an average 15 per cent increase in industrial electricity prices and a 59 per cent increase in wholesale (spot) electricity prices. It is likely that in response, households, businesses and the industrial sector reduced their electricity use. We estimate the demand reduction attributable to the carbon price at 2.5 to 4.2 TWh per year, about 1.3 to 2.3 per cent of total electricity demand in the NEM. The carbon price markedly changed relative costs between different types of power plants. Emissions-intensive brown coal and black coal generators reduced output and 4GW of emissions-intensive generation capacity was taken offline. We estimate that these shifts in the supply mix resulted in a 16 to 28kg CO2/MWh reduction in the emissions intensity of power supply in the NEM, a reduction between 1.8 and 3.3 per cent. [b]The combined impact attributable to the carbon price is estimated as a reduction of between 5 and 8 million tonnes of CO2 emissions (3.2 to 5 per cent) in 2012/13 and between 6 and 9 million tonnes (3.5 to 5.6 per cent) in 2013/14, and between 11 and 17 million tonnes cumulatively[/b]. There are fundamental difficulties in attributing observed changes in demand and supply to specific causes, especially over the short term, and in this light we use conservative parameters in the estimation of the effect of the carbon price. We conclude that the carbon price has worked as expected in terms of its short-term impacts. However, its effect on investment in power generation assets has probably been limited, because of policy uncertainty about the continuation of the carbon pricing mechanism. For emissions pricing to have its full effect, a stable, long-term policy framework is needed.[/quote] Marianna, O. G., & Jotzo, F. (2014). Impact of the carbon price on Australia’s electricity demand, supply and emissions (No. 249493). Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy. Yes, prices went up [i]as intended[/i], by around $550 per family per year. But the federal government offset the extra costs to consumers through several means, such as by tripling the personal income tax's tax-free threshold from around $6,000 to $18,200. The tax relief was immense; a taxpayer with annual earnings of $37,000 would have seen their tax bill drop from $4,600 to $3,500, for example. In fact, that taxpayer was better off [i]after[/i] the implementation of the carbon tax. But best of all, demand for carbon went down, as mentioned in that reference. Why? Because people started buying more-efficient white goods, they started minimising unnecessary power usage, they started putting more and more solar panels on their rooftops, and they switched to electricity retailers which operated renewable energy projects that allowed for the carbon tax to be offset, like my plan with Momentum energy [url]http://www.momentumenergy.com.au/residential/gas-electricity-prices/what-is-smilepower[/url] And in case you were wondering, the reason why Australia no longer has a carbon tax is because of people such as yourself who refused to think critically about the theory behind it, and then going on to elect a populist candidate who pledged to repeal the tax. [editline]12th July 2017[/editline] Also, what do you mean by 'regulate co2 output directly'? Because governments have been doing that for decades. And hey, what is often associated with extra regulation? That's right, [i]higher prices[/i]. That would make the poor even poorer. At least a carbon tax is a market-based approach that uses price signals to discourage carbon emissions, rather than government locking everything up in red tape. [editline]12th July 2017[/editline] The funniest thing about a carbon tax though, in the context of American politics, is that it's actually something that Republicans could really get behind. The tax burden of income taxes generally increases every year, because wages and salaries tend to increase every year, with those extra earnings being taxed at the higher marginal rates; a phenomenon known as bracket creep. It would require legislative action each year to offset the bracket creep. Also, if they could not reduce the tax rates (as they can't always be changed because of potential public backlash), income tax revenues would naturally increase, something which Republicans are understandably against. Meanwhile with a carbon tax, carbon tax revenues naturally go down each year, because the carbon tax discourages carbon emissions, and therefore reduces its own tax base. So in the long term, revenue naturally goes down without legislative action, requiring the government to drop spending over the long term as well, something which Republicans are for. So something like implementing a carbon tax while significantly reducing income taxes would actually be a very appropriate Republican Party policy.

Except American Republicans will never give up being able to make a little extra cash in the face of consumer upset.

It's Literally China's Fault ™