Corporations' Responsibility In Global Pollution: 71% And Counting

Climate change is one of the greatest threats to our planet in the 21st century, and corporations are the main culprits. A 2017 report by CDP, a non-profit organisation, revealed that just 100 companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron, have been responsible for 71% of global emissions since 1988. These emissions are causing global warming, with 17 of the 18 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Despite this, corporations continue to prioritise profits over sustainability, and the burden of tackling climate change is often placed on consumers through initiatives like green consumerism. However, individual actions cannot match the impact of these 100 companies, which are primarily fossil fuel producers, and their investors.

ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron are among the highest-emitting companies

According to a report by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), a non-profit organisation, 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since 1988. ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron are among the highest-emitting investor-owned companies, with their energy products contributing significantly to global GHG emissions and planetary warming. These four companies, along with Total, ConocoPhillips, and Eni, comprise a group of seven international oil companies listed on American and European stock markets.

ExxonMobil, an American oil major, has emphasised that the Paris Agreement does not require individual companies to decrease production to align with the goal of maintaining a global temperature rise below 2°C. The company has also doubled the profitability of the barrels it produces and achieved $11.3 billion in structural cost savings since 2019.

Shell, a European oil major, earned $13.8 billion in profit during the second quarter of 2024, with income attributable to its shareholders totalling $4.3 billion in Q3 2024. Shell has also engaged in new fossil fuel exploration in 2020, contributing to its high emissions.

BP, another European oil major, earned $13.8 billion in profit in Q2 2024 and engaged in new fossil fuel exploration in 2020. Chevron, the second American oil major, rejected the idea that its assets might become stranded due to climate change. Instead, it aims to be among the most efficient producers while continuing to develop new fossil fuel reserves. Chevron posted strong results, with profits of more than $29 billion, despite uncertainties in global oil demand and challenges posed by climate change.

These companies' refusal to commit to climate action or reduce fossil fuel production and exploration hampers the transition to clean energy. Their business strategies and public statements often do not align with their actions and investments, leading to concerns about "greenwashing".

Fossil fuel companies risk wasting trillions by pursuing coal, oil, and gas projects

A 2015 study by Carbon Tracker found that fossil fuel companies risked wasting more than $2 trillion in the coming decade by pursuing coal, oil, and gas projects. This is due to the potential for such projects to become worthless in the face of international action on climate change and the advancement of renewable energy technology.

The report, titled "The $2 trillion stranded assets danger zone: How fossil fuel firms risk destroying investor returns", highlights the financial and climate implications of continuing to pursue coal, oil, and gas projects. According to the report, no new coal mines will be needed, oil demand will peak around 2020, and growth in gas will not meet industry expectations.

The Carbon Tracker report challenges nine common assumptions made by the fossil fuel industry, arguing that coal, oil, and gas will not continue to grow in the coming decades. Anthony Hobley, CEO of Carbon Tracker, stated that fossil fuel companies seem "intent on wasting capital trying to hold onto growth by doing what they have always done rather than embracing the energy transition and preserving value by adopting an ex-growth strategy."

The report identifies the companies with the greatest financial exposure, including the US with $412 billion, Canada with $220 billion, China with $179 billion, Russia with $147 billion, and Australia with $103 billion. The companies that represent the biggest risk to investors include oil majors Royal Dutch Shell, Pemex, Exxon Mobil, and coal miners Peabody, Coal India, and Glencore.

The findings of the Carbon Tracker report underscore the urgent need for fossil fuel companies to align their strategies with the ongoing energy transition and the growing momentum towards a low-carbon future.

The oil industry is warned to change its business model or face a brutish end

The oil industry is at a crossroads, facing a critical choice between transformation and potential collapse. According to energy experts and research fellows, oil majors have been warned to adapt their business models or face a "nasty, brutish and short" end. This stark message underscores the urgency of transitioning away from outdated strategies that are no longer fit for purpose in a rapidly changing energy landscape.

The call for a paradigm shift in the oil industry is not unfounded. A study revealed that just 100 companies, including oil giants such as ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron, were responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. This small group of fossil fuel producers holds the key to systemic change, yet they have been falling short in addressing the climate crisis. The consequences of inaction are dire, with predictions of substantial species extinction and global food scarcity if fossil fuel extraction continues unabated.

The writing is on the wall for the oil industry, as evidenced by declining crude oil prices, tightening climate change regulations, and strategic miscalculations. Paul Stevens, a fellow at the renowned think tank Chatham House, emphasizes the need for a fundamental shift in corporate culture. He suggests that oil majors must diversify into green energy, drastically reduce their operations, or consolidate through mega-mergers to ensure long-term survival. The influence of international oil companies has been waning, and they can no longer rely solely on crude price fluctuations to dictate their future.

The financial risks of inaction are significant. Oil companies risk wasting trillions of dollars by pursuing outdated fossil fuel projects that become stranded assets. These projects are increasingly at odds with international efforts to address climate change and the growing popularity of renewable energy sources. To avert a brutal end, oil companies must embrace a new corporate culture, downsize, and shift their focus toward operations that align with global warming targets and a carbon-free economy.

The time for transformative change in the oil industry is now. Oil majors must heed the warnings and adapt their business models to navigate the challenges of a rapidly evolving energy sector. By embracing innovation, sustainability, and a commitment to environmental responsibility, they can secure a more resilient future. The alternative is a bleak outlook, where their existence becomes increasingly untenable in a world demanding urgent climate action.

The fashion industry is the second-biggest industrial polluter, responsible for 10% of emissions

The fashion industry is responsible for 10% of global carbon emissions, making it the second-biggest industrial polluter. The industry's environmental impact includes the depletion of non-renewable sources, the emission of greenhouse gases, and the use of massive amounts of water and energy. It is the second-largest consumer industry of water, requiring about 700 gallons to produce one cotton shirt and 2,000 gallons to produce a pair of jeans.

The fast fashion business model has exacerbated the issue of natural resource consumption, with the proliferation of new garments produced in increasingly shorter timespans. For example, Zara can design, produce, and deliver a new garment in two weeks, while newer companies like Shein, a major Chinese fast fashion company, can do the same in just 10 days. This rapid production and marketing of clothing to meet the latest trends result in the fashion industry producing vast amounts of waste.

The environmental impact of the fashion industry extends beyond carbon emissions and water usage. Textile dyeing, for instance, is the world's second-largest polluter of water, as the leftover water from the dyeing process is often dumped into ditches, streams, or rivers. The industry also contributes to land degradation, air pollution, and deforestation, particularly with the growing use of synthetic fibres derived from fossil fuels.

To address these issues, there have been calls for a shift to slow fashion, which advocates for manufacturing that respects people, the environment, and animals. This includes designing, testing, and investing in business models that reuse clothes and maximise their useful life. Additionally, organisations are working towards international cooperation to foster a more sustainable fashion economy, recognising the industry's significant economic value and employment of over 300 million people.

Consumers are often blamed for climate change, but corporations are the main culprits

Climate change is one of the most significant threats to our world in the 21st century, and consumers are often blamed for it. However, the main culprits are the corporations. According to a report, just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron are among the highest-emitting investor-owned companies.

The fashion industry is another significant contributor to climate change, being the second-biggest industrial polluter, responsible for 10% of global emissions. However, it is often the working-class consumers who are blamed, as they lack the funds to buy from sustainable brands and are forced to choose more affordable fast fashion options. While overconsumption is an issue in fast fashion, it is unlikely that working-class people are driving this. Instead, it is those who can afford to buy from more expensive brands but choose to buy fast fashion in large quantities.

Corporations have the power to make their products more sustainable and environmentally friendly but often prioritize profits instead. For example, Exxon, a multinational gas and oil company, was aware of climate change for decades but blocked measures to reduce emissions. Many corporations only make changes or advertise their commitment to sustainability when they believe it will increase their profits, rather than out of genuine concern for the environment.

While individual consumers do have some responsibility for their carbon footprints, this is often due to a lack of access to sustainable alternatives or being part of a larger system that contributes to emissions. For example, many people use high-emission diesel generators because they lack access to a steady, clean electricity supply. In addition, the richest 10% of people consume around 20 times more energy than the poorest 10%, with a large portion of this coming from transport, flights, and long-distance travel in big cars. Thus, while individual actions can help reduce emissions, the primary responsibility lies with corporations and state-owned entities to make systemic changes.

Frequently asked questions