Who Pollutes More: States Or Corporations?

The debate over whether states or corporations are responsible for pollution has been a long-standing one, with both entities contributing significantly to climate change. While it is essential to acknowledge the role of states in pollution, particularly through their ownership of corporations and industries, the focus of this discussion will be on the direct impact of corporations as independent entities. Corporations have been identified as major drivers of climate change, with a small number of companies contributing significantly to global emissions. The fashion industry, for example, is the second-biggest industrial polluter, responsible for 10% of global emissions, while overconsumption in fast fashion has a significant environmental impact.

The fashion industry: the second-biggest industrial polluter

While it is difficult to ascertain whether it is states or corporations that pollute more, it is evident that corporations play a significant role in climate change. Between 1988 and 2015, just 100 companies were responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions. These companies continue to extract fossil fuels at an alarming rate, leading to predictions of a possible 4°C rise in the global average temperature, which would have catastrophic consequences for species and world food production.

One of the main culprits of climate change is the fashion industry, which is the second-biggest industrial polluter. It is responsible for about 10% of global emissions, with fast fashion brands being the biggest offenders. The term "fast fashion" was coined by the New York Times to describe the rapid turnaround of trends at extremely low prices, with Zara taking a design from the conceptual stage to stores in just 15 days. Other major fast fashion brands include Shein, Uniqlo, H&M, and Primark.

The environmental impact of the fashion industry is extensive. It is the second-largest consumer of water, with approximately 700 gallons required to produce one cotton shirt and 2000 gallons for a pair of jeans. The dyeing process further pollutes water sources, as the leftover water is often dumped into ditches, rivers, and streams. The industry also contributes to the growing levels of waste, with 85% of all textiles ending up in dumps each year.

Synthetic fibres used in fast fashion, such as polyester, nylon, and acrylic, are non-biodegradable and take hundreds of years to decompose. These fibres are a significant source of microplastic pollution in the oceans, with an estimated 35% of microplastics coming from the laundering of synthetic textiles.

While consumers are often encouraged to make sustainable choices, the responsibility for the environmental impact of the fashion industry lies with the corporations. These companies have the resources and ability to make their products and processes greener and more sustainable, but they often prioritise profits over the planet.

Fossil fuel companies: 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions

The debate around who is responsible for climate change has long revolved around consumer choices and individual actions. However, the spotlight is now turning to corporations and their role in greenhouse gas emissions. A 2021 report by the Carbon Majors Report and the Climate Accountability Institute revealed that just 100 fossil fuel companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. This small group of fossil fuel producers may hold the key to systemic change in carbon emissions.

The report pinpoints the significant responsibility of these companies and their investors in driving climate change. It highlights the "absolute tension" between short-term profitability and addressing the environmental impact of fossil fuel extraction. If the current rate of fossil fuel extraction continues over the next 28 years, the global average temperature is projected to rise by up to 4°C, leading to potential species extinction and threats to world food production.

The top 10 carbon dioxide emitters among these 100 companies include well-known names such as ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron. These companies have been criticized for prioritizing profits over tackling climate change. Exxon, for example, has been accused of blocking measures to reduce emissions despite being aware of climate change for decades. The report also identifies 25 corporate and state-owned entities, including China Coal, Saudi Aramco, and Gazprom, as responsible for over 50% of global industrial emissions during the same period.

While the report focuses on fossil fuel producers, it is important to acknowledge that other industries and consumer choices also contribute to climate change. The fashion industry, for instance, is the second-biggest industrial polluter, responsible for 10% of global emissions. However, the onus should not solely fall on consumers, especially those from working-class backgrounds who may not have the financial means to choose sustainable options. Corporations have the resources and the responsibility to make their products and practices greener and more sustainable.

Some companies are taking steps towards a carbon-free economy. Apple, Facebook, Google, and Ikea have committed to obtaining 100% renewable energy, and Volvo plans to transition to electric or hybrid cars. Oil and gas companies are also investing in renewable initiatives, with Shell establishing a renewables arm and Chevron and BP investing in carbon capture and storage projects. These shifts towards a more sustainable future offer a glimmer of hope in the fight against climate change.

ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron: highest-emitting investor-owned companies

The energy products of oil and gas majors have contributed significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and planetary warming. Twenty fossil fuel companies are responsible for 35% of all energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane emissions worldwide since 1965. Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell are the highest-emitting investor-owned companies, accounting for more than 10% of global carbon emissions since 1965.

Chevron is the leading investor-owned emitter, closely followed by ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell. These companies have been discussing clean energy and climate change, pledging decarbonization strategies, and investing in alternative energies. However, there is a history of obstructive climate actions and "greenwashing," which calls for an objective evaluation of their current and historical decarbonization efforts and investment behaviour.

For example, Shell and BP have acknowledged the contribution of fossil fuels to climate change in their annual reports and pledged to take action. On the other hand, ExxonMobil has rejected the need to reduce emissions from hydrocarbon development, prioritizing profits over environmental concerns. This is evident in their efforts to block measures that would cut emissions, despite being aware of climate change for decades.

While the shift towards clean energy is gaining momentum, with companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, and Ikea leading the transition to a carbon-free economy, the historical business models of oil majors are facing challenges due to decreasing demand for hydrocarbons and reduced profit opportunities. This is exemplified by ExxonMobil's removal from the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index in 2020, coinciding with the rise of electric vehicle companies like Tesla.

In summary, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell are the highest-emitting investor-owned companies, contributing significantly to global carbon emissions. While some are taking steps towards clean energy, there is a need for a profound transformation of their fossil fuel-based business models to effectively address climate change.

Green products: consumers unable to afford sustainable alternatives

While consumers increasingly express a desire for sustainable products, the high cost of green products poses a significant barrier to their adoption. This issue is particularly pertinent in the context of the fashion industry, the second-biggest industrial polluter, where sustainable clothing brands are often inaccessible to the majority of consumers due to their higher prices.

The cost of green products can be nearly 50% more than their non-green counterparts, placing them out of reach for many working-class people. This discrepancy has led to a paradoxical situation where those who can afford to buy from elsewhere are often blamed for overconsumption, while the affordable options available to them are ignored.

Corporations play a significant role in this dynamic. They have the means to make their products greener and more sustainable but often prioritize profits over environmental concerns. While some companies advocate for cleaner energy in their advertisements, their motives may be questioned, and their actions may be driven more by profit potential than genuine concern.

The responsibility for addressing climate change should not rest solely on consumer choices. Corporations must also be held accountable for their impact on the planet. Since 1988, just 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and a small group of industries, including energy, utilities, transportation, and manufacturing, contributes the majority of corporate carbon damages.

To build a more sustainable economy, both consumers and corporations must play their part. Consumers can support affordable ESG-related products, and corporations can back up their ESG-related claims with genuine actions, ensuring that "greenwashing" does not erode consumer trust and hinder progress toward a greener future.

Corporate action: corporations must take responsibility for climate footprints

The climate crisis is an urgent issue that requires collective action from governments, corporations, and individuals. While individual actions, such as recycling and reducing energy consumption, are important, corporations have a much larger role and responsibility in addressing climate change due to their significant environmental impact and influence on a global scale.

Corporations have long been adept at shifting blame onto consumers, often those from the working class, for their environmental issues. This tactic allows them to avoid taking responsibility and making substantial changes to their practices. For example, companies like Coca-Cola and BP have launched media campaigns that focus on individual carbon footprints, diverting attention from their own substantial contributions to climate change.

The fashion industry, for instance, is the second-biggest industrial polluter, responsible for 10% of global emissions. Yet, the blame is often placed on consumers, particularly those from lower economic backgrounds, for their purchasing choices, rather than on the industry itself. Similarly, the narrative of adopting a vegan or vegetarian diet to reduce environmental impact ignores the fact that many people cannot afford these diets while maintaining adequate nutrient intake.

The reality is that just 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. The energy sector, in particular, has been identified as a major contributor, with 100 energy companies responsible for 71% of all industrial emissions since the recognition of human-driven climate change. Additionally, the top 15 U.S. food and beverage companies generate nearly 630 million metric tons of greenhouse gases annually, surpassing Australia's emissions, the 15th largest annual source of greenhouse gases globally.

These statistics underscore the urgent need for corporations to take responsibility for their climate footprints. While some companies have made net-zero commitments and set emission reduction targets, these pledges must be scrutinized for their credibility and transparency. For instance, P&G's climate target only applies to 2% of its estimated emissions, resulting in a negligible 1% reduction in its climate footprint.

To ensure progress, corporations must be held accountable for their emissions across their entire supply chain and product lifecycles, not just those emitted during the manufacturing process. They should also be subject to intense scrutiny to confirm the credibility of their pledges, with stronger regulations put in place to support ambitious corporate actors without placing them at an economic disadvantage.

In conclusion, corporations must step up and take responsibility for their climate footprints. They have the resources and influence to drive policy change, shape consumer preferences, and rapidly respond to the exigencies of climate change. By taking bold action, corporations can contribute significantly to mitigating the climate crisis.

Frequently asked questions