I pit the idea that "100 Companies are reponsible for 71% of global warming"

I’m speaking from my personal experience with people I personally in Pakistan who could not afford a motorcycle in the 1980s who are now living is gigantic houses with staff of servants and being driven around in large SUVs. The upper middle class and “higher” people I know in Pakistan, Singapore, UAE, Turkey and Australia seem to be in pretty much full pursuit of consumption as the typical American of the same income strata.

The one guy I know personally who has been trying to reduce his carbon footprint for 20 years even though he could afford to jet around the world is in the US. It’s true that he is not a white American, but he thinks he is.

I would wholeheartedly agree if it weren’t for the pretty well documented fact that power brokers whose enormous profits have depended on non renewable energy sources have worked very hard to retard the growth of renewable energy. After all, you can’t put a meter on the sun and charge for it.

How Utility Companies Try to Undermine Solar Power

Not a contradiction. It’s your pitting sir, you have the burden of proof.

From the Vox article on pets,

“The meat industry produces about 14.5% of all human-made greenhouse gases [sic] globally.”

From the Guardian article,

“Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to[…]”

Even if none of the meat industry companies are in the Guardian’s list of 100 companies, 71 + 14.5 < 100.


Yes its completely a contradiction. It would only not be if those evil agri-mega-corps were taking all the meat and eating it themselves at big banquet surrounded by huge vats of burning fossil fuels. Show a pic of that and I’d totally agree global warming is their fault and not ours.

The meat industry is generating that carbon as us westerners (and, yes, our pets) want to eat meat. If you deny that while feeding your dog meat you are being a denialist.

It appears to me that the two claims are completely uncontradictory. Again, I ask you to prove the Vox article contradicts the Guardian article.



Yes, so what? That does not contradict the Guardian’s claim that ‘Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988’.

I wasn’t making that claim.

I was pitting the Twitter poster (and the point of view generally) who was implying that because its those 100 companies that causing global warming not us, then your dog is not causing global warming.

If you are a dog owner in the western world then you are absolutely he cause of global warming. The fact that there is a big bad corporation providing your dog food (and producing carbon while they do it) doesn’t make it any less your fault.

As I said in the OP I’m not denying that. What is utter and completely irresponsible BS is saying “oh its those 100 companies fault, not ours!”, which is clearly what that Twitter post and those like are saying.

You might as well say “We aren’t causing global warming the ground is!”

Put aside the concept of moral responsibility for a minute. It’s not utter and complete irresponsibility to focus regulatory efforts on the supply side of carbon emissions rather than the demand side.


But saying “oh its those 100 companies fault, not ours!” isn’t saying “we should regulate carbon emissions”. Most the regulations which would have an effect on global warming are about reducing how much carbon we use (e.g. regulating the minimum MPG of cars, taxing products based on carbon usage, mandating solar panels in new homes, etc. etc.)

Saying “oh its those 100 companies fault, not ours!” is saying we shouldn’t regulate any of those things, as its not us that’s emitting the carbon, why should we? Invariably (if my social media is anything to go by) what follows is “there’s no ethical consumption in capitalism” or some variant of it. Whereby all the rich woke folk in the western world can merrily go on destroying the world until such a time as we completely tear down the global economic system and replace it with something else that will make everything better.

But that’s true. There is no ethical consumption in capitalism. Effective policy should rely on economic incentive and not consumer ethics. It is strictly not the government’s job to regulate consumer ethics.

While consumers bear ultimate responsibility so far as demand drives supply, conversation about regulating greenhouse gas emmissions should be framed so as to hold the actual emitters responsible for their emissions. Regulation must target the emitters as a matter of practicality.

Consumers will take responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions when businesses pass on the costs of regulation.