[jblok]

This article makes out like the companies themselves are directly responsible, rather than the customers of these companies, i.e. you and me. We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services. Not to say there's not things a company can do to improve it's efficiency, but ultimately, a company isn't going to keep their factories firing away if no one is buying their stuff.

The same argument can be applied when people look at China and think they are the problem because of their high use of coal and manufacturing industry. Well, I'd guess that a lot of their output is going to Western consumers, so again, it is they who are responsible.

[daptaq]

Ah yes, what's better than trying to shift the blame from the actual people and groups doing this, to individuals, who often don't even know better? No need to address the companies or (dare I say) suggest regulations. It's the consumer who should think about this, he's the center of the market universe - besides 7 billion other centers - and only he - with the coincidental cooperation of all other 7 billion people - can change this. How? Why by consuming... ethically. Then the companies can still go on doing what they so, find market, created deals nobody knows of, destroy the environment and infiltrate governments with their "special interests". All the consumer has to do is spend more money on fancy stuff, and he doesn't have to feel guilty anymore. It's all ok! It might not be easy to ensure that all the people consume "correctly", but it's sure easier than trying to address the companies to produce "correctly". It's just basis economics.

[rayiner]

> Ah yes, what's better than trying to shift the blame from the actual people and groups doing this, to individuals, who often don't even know better?

This isn't a situation where you're blaming someone who buys an iPhone for all the pollution Apple creates in making them. Here, the actual person "doing" the pollution is you and me, when we buy a gas-powered car and drive it dozens of miles through suburban gridlock to get to work, or leave the thermostat at 68 on a hot summer day.

And while it might be reasonable to say that an iPhone consumer has no idea what toxic crap is involved in making that seemingly innocuous product, that's absolutely not reasonable when it comes to the products made by Exxon, etc. Everyone "knows better."

[akgerber]

People generally don't buy Exxon's products because they're hydrocarbon aficionados— they buy them because they need to get to work and their kids need to get to school.

And they need cars and gasoline to do those things because American cities and suburbs are usually built around cars as opposed to walking, cycling, and mass transit. While that's not exclusively due to oil and car companies— desires to maintain segregation played a huge part too— they certainly played a huge part in ensuring American society was built in a way that ensured demand for their products.

[rayiner]

Isolated anecdotes aside, oil companies had very little to do with how American cities are designed.

[justforFranz]

Oil companies had conducted research into global warming decades before the public had become aware of it. And they did nothing.

[stevedt]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

Auto, tire and oil companies had an affect in some places.

[rayiner]

The poster I was replying to didn't say these companies merely "had an affect in some places." He suggested that they were the dominant reason for and "played a huge part" in how American cities were designed. Then handful of examples you point to do not suggest that these companies even moved the needle in how cities were designed.

[Joe-Z]

> the actual person "doing" the pollution is you and me, when we buy a gas-powered car and drive it dozens of miles through suburban gridlock to get to work, or leave the thermostat at 68 on a hot summer day

These examples demonstrate what lies in the power of the consumer and what doesn't pretty well though. Leaving the thermostat at 68 could be argued to be wasteful for the mere convenience of having it 'nice and cool'. However, I think it's in the hands of politicians to see that the energy powering the A/C unit, comes from more environmentally-friendly sources. Such a solution would certainly be a lot more reliable and sustainable than requiring every citizen to just live with the heat even though everybody knows the cool air of the A/C is just one button press away.

Similarly for your other example of driving through the suburban gridlock. I guess nobody wishes for traffic jams and long commutes through concrete deserts. However, people just use the existing infrastructure. What would be the alternative? Live closer to the city center, which probably results in much higher cost of living. Or not going to the city center every day, which would require having a (compared to most) very flexible job.

These are issues that need to be solved on a political level and not by simply expecting everyone to 'do the right thing' (in this case meaning, to behave more environmentally friendly), while at the same time knowing that this often comes with a financial or quality-of-life cost that most people are not willing to bear.

EDIT: typos

[rayiner]

> Similarly for your other example of driving through the suburban gridlock. I guess nobody wishes for traffic jams and long commutes through concrete deserts. However, people just use the existing infrastructure.

People aren't just using the existing infrastructure. This is what they're choosing to build. In the late 1980s, Loudon County VA (the county next door to where I grew up) was mostly rural. Over the last 30 years I've watched it develop, and guess what? People developed it into a car-dependent sprawl, on purpose, and from scratch. People want their McMansion on an acre of lawn they never use, where they have to drive 15-20 minutes to the nearest grocery store. People want it so much, they get on municipal zoning boards and outlaw building anything else.

[delazeur]

You're straw-manning here. A lot of rhetoric about pollution implicitly or explicitly paints a picture of evil corporations polluting for fun and profit, but any successful scheme to reduce pollution has to acknowledge that corporations are just one part (even if they are a very large part) of a broader human system. We can't move forward by simply pinning everything on corporations; that's a good strategy for making ourselves feel righteous but not a good strategy for effecting actual change.

[sqeaky]

I don't think it is a straw-man to point at a real problem and demand answers. A straw-man argument is creating something that doesn't exist then attacking that. He didn't call them evil, you are accusing him of doing that (You are closer to constructing a straw-man than he is).

These companies really do pollute, really are the largest American CO@ emitters and as Americans we have a right to answers and solutions.

[delazeur]

> I don't think it is a straw-man to point at a real problem and demand answers. A straw-man argument is creating something that doesn't exist then attacking that.

"You are shifting the blame" is a straw man because the GP didn't do that. Rather, it pointed out a nuance in the issue that the previous comment didn't acknowledge.

(And a nit: a straw man attacks an argument that was not made, not a thing that doesn't exist.)

> He didn't call them evil, you are accusing him of doing that (You are closer to constructing a straw-man than he is).

Read my comment again. I said "a lot of rhetoric does X," which is vastly different from "you are doing X."

[justforFranz]

Throwing the responsibility onto individuals is DUMB because it decentralizes responsibility. Responsibility requires accountability in order to work. And as much as we'd all love to implement the anti-scale properties of "the long tail", the FACT of the matter is that efficient & effective management of the problem of pollution DEMANDS that it be centered and focused on the companies that produce it.

[delazeur]

Throwing the responsibility onto individuals is DUMB because it decentralizes responsibility.

Good thing I'm not doing that, then.

[throwawaymanbot]

Corporations pay lobbyists to weaken or remove laws that hold them to task for pollution. That is they chose to do it. (for many reasons)

Its not me or you thats changing law to pollute on behalf of corporations or companies. Its lawyers working for corporations.

So how is the commentator "Straw-manning"??

[Joe-Z]

Phew, sounds like a lot of work! If only we could muster up some congregation of people that speak for many other people, so that they could speak on our behalf and tell these companies to cut the crap...

That sure sounds nice.

[mac01021]

If Alice pays Bob to kill Cathy, I think we can all agree that Alice and Bob are both felons.

If Alice pays Bob to procure a tuna sandwich for her, and Bob chooses a means of procural that kills Cathy as a byproduct, common sense dictates that Bob is again a felon, while the amount of responsibility born by Alice depends on the extent to which she was aware of what Bob was going to do.

[the_common_man]

> If Alice pays Bob to procure a tuna sandwich for her, and Bob chooses a means of procural that kills Cathy as a byproduct, common sense dictates that Bob is again a felon, while the amount of responsibility born by Alice depends on the extent to which she was aware of what Bob was going to do.

Right. (In this case), Alice is now aware, they are both felons for future transactions.

[Joe-Z]

However, Alice is dependent on tuna sandwiches to maintain her and is desperately hoping for Dick to change the rules, so she can finally go eat some mac'n'cheese.

[xoa]

>We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services.

Utterly wrong under multiple criteria.

1. If you read the article you'll see a number of these companies exist in polities that are in no way representative democracies without even the genuine goal (let alone a somewhat decent implementation) of a full market system, making them insulated from even general population pressure let alone market pressure.

2. For the ones that exist in the 1st World under reasonably market-based economies, you are still wrong, because the entire point of a market economy is that the price represents that all costs, ie., no externalities. Consumers can of course factor in non-cost factors at their option, but when it comes to something like pollution everything associated should be built in and it is absolutely not the end consumers fault if some company is committing fraud by failing to deal with externalities.

It's unfortunate modern conservatives in particular have done a full 180 and grown to hate the Free Market and refuse to implement emissions pricing, but that isn't up to individuals in their role as consumers (though in a democracy it is their fault in their role as citizens if they're supporting anti-market politicians). If the price of emitting a ton of CO2 or CH4 was simply set at the price of industrially removing (within a year) a ton, then things would be sorted out from there. The vast majority of humanity needs to be involved with externally produced products and/or services to survive in the modern world, that's not some option or crime. The sticker price should be reflecting all costs so they can make appropriate comparisons and choices.

[devwastaken]

>We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services.

We do. But, what is your point there? Are you saying that individuals have the ability to group up and stop it by not buying? Because that would be true. But, there's always that problem of realism that gets in the way. In theory, yes, we could pretty much solve or do anything as humans. Does that mean its realistically possible? No. Corporations have grown up with capitalistic countries, and are ingrained in its culture and work.

Sure, I'll stop shopping at Walmart. Until I see my grocery bills go up, and my savings dipped into to pay bills. Its the same story for many, many others.

People don't know any better, and even if they did, and we all grouped together, these conglomerates have such a gargantuan amount of money stored away that they can bet it won't last. They'll win that bet. Employees go on strike, get new ones. Employees try to form a union, close the store, re-open a month later.

When you consider the absolutetely massive size of the money and assets here, the very notion that its 'our' fault, is true, but its reasonings misleading.

[jblok]

I get all of that. You're spot on.

My point was just addressing the main theme of the article which is trying to make out that if we just got rid of these companies, we'd cut emissions by 71%. Well yeh sure, but then the world wouldn't continue to function as normal.

As individuals, we have the same methods as we always have. Don't drive when you can walk, use renewable energy, get an electric car, shop local, etc.

And of course, regulating both "ourselves", such that demand goes away. E.g. banning sales of diesel cars. And regulating businesses so that they aren't polluting unduly on our behalf e.g. carbon capture in power stations.

[undersuit]

>the main theme of the article which is trying to make out that if we just got rid of these companies

That's the second time you've said that. What article are you reading?

The one I'm reading from this thread says: “Our purpose is not to name and shame firms, our purpose is to provide transparency and call attention to the quite extraordinary fact that just 100 companies played a crucial role in the problem,” said Pedro Faria, technical director of the Carbon Majors Database, which collected the information for the report. “It’s obvious they have a share of responsibility in the solution.”

I think that last sentence is key. These 100 companies are profiting off of creating the majority of the problem, some even maliciously. Does levying responsibility upon these companies necessitate their destruction?

[wccrawford]

The article says:

>The most polluting investor-owned companies on the list are ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron

Are they trying to say that those companies pollute directly, or that they sell to people who then pollute?

Because the former is definitely the company's fault. And we should be asking them to stop that.

But the latter is entirely the responsibility of their customers. And that's us.

[undersuit]

>Are they trying to say that those companies pollute directly, or that they sell to people who then pollute?

The companies are selling polluting materials, every single one of them is a producer of fossil fuels. Can you really sell a customer a gallon of gas and then blame them for the pollution when burning it?

[wccrawford]

Yes. Absolutely.

[delazeur]

Yes, the free market approach is unlikely to succeed here, but that's why we have elected representatives.

[throw2016]

That's not how the market works. Consumer preferences are expressed by what's available in the market not the other way round.

And even leaving market mechanics aside 'demand' doesn't justify 'anything'.

A civilized society operates on rules and regulations. This is a problem of regulations, capture and unconstrained behavior by corporates.

[sarabande]

I agree with your argument that since consumers are the ones who demand the product, they are the reason such companies exist.

However, customers typically have little information on how many greenhouse gases are produced for a given product they buy, and especially not when it counts -- that is, in a store before a purchase -- so they cannot be reasonably expected to vote with their wallet.

One solution might be a combination of:

1) Labeling all products with the emissions that took to create them, so customers can easily vote with their wallet. Perhaps display them next to prices, perhaps with a label like Nutritional Facts on food products, or like a warning when some emissions threshold is exceeded, like smoking risks on cigarette cartons. Customers should not have to watch documentaries or do research on which companies are environmentally friendly and which aren't, but rather have that information given at purchase time.

One or both of:

2a) Subsidizing environmentally-friendly ways of production (perhaps even just for a time) so that these companies can survive against their coal-burning competitors. This way, customers voting with their wallet don't have to pay extreme prices for alternatives just because they think reducing greenhouse gases is good for the world -- with subsidies or tariffs, we could make alternatives somewhat price-competitive.

2b) Taxing goods made with too many greenhouse gases (i.e. the reverse of 2a).

[adrianN]

It's very hard to find out how many GHGs were produced for a particular product. Manufactures have massive supply chains. Tracing a product back to the ores from which it comes is a daunting task.

[gyrgtyn]

> We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services.

I don't know how this thread is surviving this long without someone arguing with you about this.

The demand is created by (the marketing departments of) the companies. Come on.

[justforFranz]

This response is SO BAD, it makes me wonder if you're not paid to post it.