-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SF sues oil companies because of climate change
- Thread starter voyager
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
I can’t count the amount of times I’ve had conversations with people about climate change or ghg’s and their biggest argument is that China and India are the real problem. On a per capita basis we pollute far more than India and China. We also have the resources to begin drastically reducing our carbon footprint and are failing to do so.
is that so? are you suggesting that the tremendous increase of industrial activities in both india and china can be ignored? and as far as I know the US is one of the leaders in the world in decreasing the impacts of industry in the world.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
They also conveniently ignore that both these countries have committed to ending non-EV cars in short order. China especially is phasing out fossils at a far more rapid pace than was thought possible.
Sure, it makes sense to proceed with some fossil projects that have been in the pipeline. But China's plan is clearly to be energy self sufficient as quickly and cheaply as possible. That means solar and wind.
Merrill
Merrill
I’m disappointed to hear that both China and India are building over 1600 coal fired power plants throughout the world.
I don't know if you are an University of Illinois graduate (Math is only for White Racists), but here's how math actually works.
Global CO2 levels are not measured per capita because not everybody has their own personal planet.
So 'per capita' makes little sense when it comes to global pollution issues. You don't get a pass because you're overpopulated. Pollution laws are national, not per individual.
Exactly. Per capita pollution means exactly zilch. What a false metric used to promulgate a false narrative. Typical liberal nonsense.
As for SF suing oil companies, what a joke and waste of money. Maybe instead of wasting their money on frivolous lawsuits they should clean up their city that smells like urine. SF streets are disgusting!
Last edited:
Yes. No. Maybe one of, definitely not THE leader, I don’t even think we’d make the podium.
Thanks for the snarky math lesson oh wise one.
Yes pollution laws are national which is exactly why it is important to look at per capita (per country) carbon production. It is especially important when people that live in the US try to deflect the importance of US curtailment of ghg’s because “China or “India””. It’s a stupid scape goat, promotes complacency, and isn’t true if you look at the numbers.
Do you not understand how a countries per capita carbon pollution is relevant to any discussion about curtailing global ghg levels?
Claiming over population is once agin just deflection. Should it instead be a calculated as a ratio of ghg emission per area of landmass?
If concerned about global warming, allegedly it is from "greenhouse gases", only one of which is CO2. Therefore should look at all sources of GHG production, since it is a global problem. Cows via CH4 make 16% of it. China makes 30% of it, USA 15%, and India 7%. Irrelevant if USA makes more per capita, the earth doesn't care about that statistic.
arcus
Active Member
Which we are all guilty of by conveniently consuming the goods manufactured offshore.
Another food for thought: while CO2 is the main culprit quoted for decades, one should not forget about methane (especially in an advent of natural gas production ramp up).
In that same vein the earth doesn’t care about what country pollutes more either. Which is exactly my point. People so often deflect that the “real” problem is China and India. Not only do I think it is wrong, it doesn’t matter. Unless of course you live in China or India and can influence and effect change there.
I live in the US, we are the second largest emitters of ghg’s (by country) in the world and there is plenty of work to do here to lower our carbon footprint.
Agreed. I'm not convinced that GHG are the main cause of global warming, but don't mind hedging our bets by cutting excessive GHG production and other types of pollution while scientists duke it out.
I agree.
Methane is a much stronger ghg. However, the US has been curtailing it’s methane emissions over the last 20 years, although that trend may reverse. The interesting thing about methane that is emitted today will be gone in 10 years. The co2 will stay around almost indefinitely, at least until a plant uses it for photosynthesis or humans start some form of carbon sequestration in the future.
Merrill
Merrill
What is the difference, just google Chinese and Indian new coal fired power plants, we need to get rid of coal!
skitown
Member
Exxon gives up major climate change fight
After years of resisting, ExxonMobil has agreed to reveal the risks it faces from climate change and the global crackdown on carbon emissions.
It's a major reversal for the world's biggest publicly traded oil company. Exxon (XOM)aggressively fought a shareholder proposal in May to disclose how the changing climate could hurt the company. The proposal wasn't binding, but 63% of shareholders supported it -- a rare rebuke that forced Exxon to rethink its stance.
Exxon said on Monday it has "reconsidered" the proposal following talks with major shareholders and supporters of the idea. Exxon said in an SEC filing that "in the near future" it will "further enhance" its disclosures on climate change.
Those enhancements, Exxon said, will include how the company is positioning for a lower-carbon future, how its business could be hurt by shifting energy demands and the "implications of two degree Celsius scenarios." The 2015 Paris climate accord requires countries to limit global average temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius.
Limiting global warming could have massive implications for Exxon. For instance, Exxon's energy assets could lose value if the world's oil appetite shrinks because of emerging technologies like electric cars and regulations stemming from the Paris agreement.
After years of resisting, ExxonMobil has agreed to reveal the risks it faces from climate change and the global crackdown on carbon emissions.
It's a major reversal for the world's biggest publicly traded oil company. Exxon (XOM)aggressively fought a shareholder proposal in May to disclose how the changing climate could hurt the company. The proposal wasn't binding, but 63% of shareholders supported it -- a rare rebuke that forced Exxon to rethink its stance.
Exxon said on Monday it has "reconsidered" the proposal following talks with major shareholders and supporters of the idea. Exxon said in an SEC filing that "in the near future" it will "further enhance" its disclosures on climate change.
Those enhancements, Exxon said, will include how the company is positioning for a lower-carbon future, how its business could be hurt by shifting energy demands and the "implications of two degree Celsius scenarios." The 2015 Paris climate accord requires countries to limit global average temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius.
Limiting global warming could have massive implications for Exxon. For instance, Exxon's energy assets could lose value if the world's oil appetite shrinks because of emerging technologies like electric cars and regulations stemming from the Paris agreement.
What do you think would happen if the oil companies just stopped selling their products? Unlike smoking society would completely shut down.
Similar threads
