100 Companies Aren’t Solely to Blame for Global Emissions
You need to read between the lines
Published in 2017, the infamous story about 100 companies who are responsible for 71% of all greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, is still circulating today. Because of the great work the author did with the headline, the story remains well-used. You can rarely find a story on climate change on Medium that hasn’t used that article as a source. Even I have.
However, the problem with this article is that it doesn’t dig below the surface. It appears that either the author chose not to read the climate report the article is based on or chose to omit certain details. When looking at the climate report in question, which calls out these 100 companies, you need to read closely and in between the lines.
The report clearly mentions the definition of two important terms to understand when looking at emissions. “Upstream emissions” are all of those emitted by the company itself during the production of its products. “Downstream emissions” are all of the emissions related to the usage of their products by consumers.
Generally, when an emissions report is written, the total emissions of a company are considered to be just their associated upstream emissions. However, in this report, the data analyzers chose to include all of the related downstream emissions into the total emissions produced by the company. So of course, 100 companies are going to be responsible for 71% of global emissions.
The problem with this news story is that many environmentalists and regular uninterested citizens alike choose to use this headline as a reason to feel less guilty about their carbon footprint. Don’t get me wrong, I totally agree. I don’t think that many of us should feel bad about our carbon footprint. Compared to the footprint created by major companies, we are just fleas on the side of a cow. However, taken in the context of the well-known article, those 100 companies are responsible for such a large portion of the global greenhouse gas emissions because we as consumers are consuming the products they are creating and contributing to downstream emissions.
While individuals don’t have nearly the global impact of major fossil fuel companies such as Saudi Aramco, Coal India, and ExxonMobil, or even whole countries such as China, India, or the United States, our overconsumption as a population is still a major part of the problem.
According to an article in the Journal of Industrial Ecology published back in 2016, 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by household consumption. That number has likely gone up since then. While it’s easy to point the finger and blame big bad corporations, it’s vitally important that we look in the mirror once in a while ourselves.
Consumerism is the reason behind the compelling headline.
Climate change won’t be solved if the blame-game is constantly being played. While it’s easy to write a negative piece about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket and that citizens and corporations alike are the cause of this unsustainable degradation, it also doesn’t help things.
Suffice it to say, the climate problem is one caused by humans, whether they act as individuals or as part of corporations. Generally speaking, we all get that. There is more than enough media shoved down our throats each day describing in vivid detail how we are damaging our only home in the solar system.
The problem is that few decide to act on it. The problem is that those of us that are working hard to live sustainable lives are generally already the ones who had low carbon footprints, to begin with. We are trying to compensate for those that aren’t even trying. Furthermore, why is it that individuals in lower socio-economic brackets are trying their hardest when the top 1% of the world are flying their jets, driving their polluting cars, and consuming gross amounts of products?
As consumers, we don’t have many options. While I’ve said in the past that we as consumers can make a difference by choosing with our dollar, I also have to concede that few options are economical. Many of us can’t afford a $50 sustainably-made plain white t-shirt. We do our best by using reusable grocery bags, recycling, using our cars less, and supporting local businesses. That’s all that can be asked of us.
I agree, we as consumers can do more to help our planet. However, we need the help of our governments to make the sustainability-based economy more economically-friendly. We can’t have companies like Shell asking us what we can do to reduce emissions when the only options are to buy carbon offsets, to stop flying, to buy an electric vehicle, or to use renewable energy sources. Currently, most of those options require too much capital for the average citizen.
So bring on the government involvement in supporting the spread of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, making them a cheaper alternative than fossil-fuel run power sources. Start subsidizing research into biodegradable plastics. Give civil engineers the support they need to design cities into eco-havens that require less energy and promote more foot traffic. The government must help citizens become less reliable on those 100 companies and the products they deliver.
Government involvement will be one of the few ways that 100 companies will no longer be responsible for 71% of global emissions.
History is the reason we are dependent on 100 companies.
A basic principle of science is that of precaution. The precautionary principle tells us that if there is even a shadow of a doubt that tragedy could befall humans, extensive scientific knowledge is not required before making a decision on the situation. As an example, if there is a substantial reason to believe that a massive earthquake is likely to cause death and destruction to millions of people, the government doesn’t have to wait for ultimate scientific proof of the earthquake before they start evacuating people.
For some reason, that hasn’t happened when it comes to climate change.
If you put 500 scientists in a room, you’d be hard-pressed to find one that doesn’t believe in global warming. All of those scientists would agree that something needs to be done and that something should have been done 40 years ago to prevent us from coming this far in the wrong direction.
Scientists have known that climate change is occurring for over a century now. By the year 2000, it became most apparent to the scientific community that climate change caused by the emission of greenhouse gases would contribute to a massive warming event. An international group of scientists announced that the world should begin to reduce emissions to avoid a catastrophic event. This is the precautionary principle in action.
In an ideal circumstance, once announced to the world, the precautionary principle would have been heeded and governments and corporations would have begun to reel in their emissions. This was not the case.
Instead, according to an article in Scientific American, many corporations who opposed government regulation spent millions of dollars on a disinformation campaign that included lobbying, advertising, and the generation of reports that appeared to be from scientific publications, all with the goal of convincing citizens that there was no impending global warming crisis. Gotta love corporations, doing everything to protect their bottom line.
However, at the end of the day, governments chose not to heed the precautionary principle. Much was still unknown about climate change, so governments knew little about what actions they should take or if they should take any actions at all. So here we find ourselves, living as the result of a lack of trust in science.
Heeding the precautionary principle 20 years ago could have had us living in a time where our dependence on products from the 100 companies would have been limited. Alternative energy would be less expensive than fossil fuel-powered options, electric cars would be cost-effective, and buying carbon offsets would only be required for corporations and governments — not your everyday individual. In other words, those 100 companies would not be responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The takeaway.
So where does that leave us?
We now have a better understanding of our role in the headline that rocked the world. We also know that as consumers, we need help from our governing bodies to make sustainable choices that can reduce our dependence on 100 companies. Furthermore, we understand that our dependence on 100 companies began a long time ago when the precautionary principle wasn’t given the respect it deserved.
At this point, the clock is ticking down on the time we have to slow our emissions to avoid warming our planet and incurring catastrophic consequences. But it isn’t solely on the shoulders of consumers.
The climate problem is caused by humans, whether they act as individuals or as corporations and governments. One leads the other, and we need to remember that as our Earth changes for the better, or the worse.
The takeaway: Be aware of your environmental impact, but remember why your impact is the way it is.
