Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by whatever1 1709 days ago
A source (opensecrets) that is claiming as a source itself(opensecrets analysis). You win.
1 comments

Wow, you really have to question your motivations when you're defending Exxon's climate change contribution. But OK, I'll play that game.

The IPCC was the source for the OpenSecrets statement (as they said in the quote). They just consolidated the information. Feel free to read the IPCC Report yourself.

Or The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

(Table shows ExxonMobile at 1.98%)

Or Statistica: https://www.statista.com/statistics/531354/greenhouse-gas-em...

Or Sustainability Now: http://sustainabilitynow.com/Docs/exxons_climate_footprint.p...

> The contribution of emissions from ExxonMobil to total carbon dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial levels in 2002 was 4.8 to 5.5%. This percentage contribution from ExxonMobil has steadily increased, rising from 0% in 1882, to 2.5 to 2.8% in 1960 and then almost doubling in the last forty years to 4.8 to 5.5% in 2002. The contribution of methane emissions is smaller, peaking at 1.6% of total global concentrations above pre-industrial levels, in 2002.

One might question your ability to do basic research and a division.

ExxonMobil reports 120M tons of CO2 per year [1]

Our total anthropogenic emmissions according to IPCC, EPA and other credible scientific organizations are close to 35B tons of CO2 per year [2].

You can also calculate it by using the concentration of CO2 and the total volume of air on earth. But I guess this is out of your league.

Now divide 35B with 120M. You will get 0.0034. That is 0.34%.

One piece of advice. Don’t become a researcher. Keep posting on HN.

[1] https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/energy...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions