I don’t understand the point of the top-20 or top-100 lists of CO2 emitters that are mostly oil and gas producers. But the producers don’t use the stuff, they sell it to millions of other companies that burn it or transform it. It’s not like we can just ask them to pollute less without reducing the consumption of everyone down then chain. So it feels kinda pointless and borderline dishonest. Am I missing something?

@Tryphon yes and no. Until fossil fuel prices get so low that it becomes unprofitable to pump up oil etc, fossil fuel producing countries and companies could choose to limit production, voluntarily.

This would increase energy prices, slow economic growth - but almost certainly reduce CO2 emissions.

This power is in the hands of a few rich powerful companies and governments. They can stop it at the source, right now. If they want to.

@michiel slowing economic growth will only reduce emission growth. You meant contract the economy? Sorry to be nitpicky, but it’s a common mistake, and not always an innocent one...

Follow

@Tryphon I'm not sure I agree that economic growth is tightly linked to growth in CO2 emissions, but of course I meant to say what you wanted to say.

But it all producers of fossil fuels were to completely cease production tomorrow - probably it would lead to worldwide chaos and bloodshed, but it would solve the emissions problem nicely.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!