Just 36 companies account for 50% of global CO2 emissions, report reveals

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,012   +59
Staff
The big picture: A recent analysis of emissions data from the Carbon Majors database has revealed a troubling trend: emissions from the world's largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers increased in 2023 compared to the previous year. This rise is particularly alarming given the overwhelming scientific evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to catastrophic global warming.

The data indicates that over 50 percent of these emissions can be attributed to just 36 high-emitting companies, with state-owned enterprises playing a significant role.

In 2023, 93 companies in the database increased their emissions, including 50 investor-owned firms. State-owned enterprises dominated global emissions, with 16 of the top 20 state-owned emitters contributing 52 percent. Chinese companies were particularly prominent, accounting for 23 percent of global fossil fuel and cement-related CO₂ emissions, maintaining their lead from the previous year.

Cement emissions saw a significant rise, with four of the five companies experiencing the greatest relative increases in emissions being cement producers: Holcim Group, Heidelberg Materials, UltraTech Cement, and CRH.

Biggest CO₂ emitters in the fossil fuel industry (2023 data)

State owned companies

Aramco (Saudi Arabia)
1,839
Coal India (India)
1,548
CHN Energy (China)
1,533
NIOC (Iran)
1,262
Jinneng Group (China)
1,228

Private companies

ExxonMobil (US)
562
Chevron (US)
487
Shell (UK)
418
TotalEnergies (France)
359
BP (UK)
347

The Carbon Majors database has been instrumental in advancing climate accountability worldwide. It has been used as evidence in legal cases and regulatory actions, including supporting Climate Superfund laws in Vermont and New York.

The database has also been referenced in efforts to quantify the role of fossil fuel companies in exacerbating extreme weather events and in legal advocacy for potential criminal charges against fossil fuel executives.

The top five state-owned emitters – Saudi Aramco, Coal India, CHN Energy, National Iranian Oil Co., and Jinneng Group – were responsible for 17.4 percent of global CO₂ emissions in 2023. Meanwhile, the top five investor-owned emitters – ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, TotalEnergies, and BP – accounted for 4.9 percent of global emissions.

If Saudi Aramco were a country, it would rank as the fourth largest emitter globally, while ExxonMobil's emissions are comparable to Germany's.

The dataset, which spans emissions from 1854 to 2023, reveals that 67.5 percent of anthropogenic industrial CO₂ emissions since the Industrial Revolution can be traced to 180 corporate and state-producing entities.

The International Energy Agency has emphasized that new fossil fuel projects initiated after 2021 are incompatible with achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, an increasingly urgent goal as global emissions continue to rise.

To meet the internationally agreed target of limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C, global emissions must decrease by 45 percent by 2030. However, with emissions still on the rise, the challenge of mitigating climate change remains daunting.

Permalink to story:

 
Why is this "a troubling trend" ???

More CO2 is very good news in at least 2 ways:
First, more CO2 is great for plants. Despite the uptick in the recent decades, CO2 levels are still close to the dangerous all-time lows.
Second, increasing emissions means increasing economic activity, which is also great.

"Climate change" is officially dead. Spreading climate hysteria doesn't make sense anymore.
 
Why is this "a troubling trend" ???

More CO2 is very good news in at least 2 ways:
First, more CO2 is great for plants. Despite the uptick in the recent decades, CO2 levels are still close to the dangerous all-time lows.
Second, increasing emissions means increasing economic activity, which is also great.

"Climate change" is officially dead. Spreading climate hysteria doesn't make sense anymore.
Climate change is "dead" to those that don't care about the future of those that you leave behind when pollution eventual gets to kill you.
 
Last edited:
Tricky situation! A fundamental law of capitalism is growth, and that growth requires energy. We really need to crack true fusion to be in a better spot. Renewables are great, but there still is a material and fuel cost to them in production, installation and end of life.

In the short term if we can create a cheap, sustainable, reliable and dense mechanism for energy storage we would solve many issues related to energy use.
 
And with Trump in office it will only get worse as he is obviously proud that we keep producing more dangerous gasses instead of embracing a much cleaner and sustainable alternatives.

But once again what can we expect of Trump and his supporters that are willing to sell the world out just to make an extra dollar.
 
Last edited:
Tricky situation! A fundamental law of capitalism is growth, and that growth requires energy. We really need to crack true fusion to be in a better spot. Renewables are great, but there still is a material and fuel cost to them in production, installation and end of life.

In the short term if we can create a cheap, sustainable, reliable and dense mechanism for energy storage we would solve many issues related to energy use.
I'd really like to look at your source material.
 
Why is this "a troubling trend" ???

More CO2 is very good news in at least 2 ways:
First, more CO2 is great for plants. Despite the uptick in the recent decades, CO2 levels are still close to the dangerous all-time lows.
Second, increasing emissions means increasing economic activity, which is also great.

"Climate change" is officially dead. Spreading climate hysteria doesn't make sense anymore.



Wait, I'm not that fully left lunatic, future is nuclear, with some wind and solar, that produce synthetic petrol when off peak. But global warming is a scientific fact, if exaggerated out of proportion by some politicians.
Also, as a EU citizen, wanted to point out that non of those top companies are in EU, why EU is so bend on destroying EU by introducing unrealistic anti emmision standards? Maybe because money and lobbying from outside EU is involved?
 

Attachments

  • 000zzz.jpg
    000zzz.jpg
    41.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Can't wait to see the bleeding hearts finally go after China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India for their emissions.

Wait, what's that? Orange Man bad? Boo-Hoo EU? I see. Welp, so much for that. Lefties want us to keep kneecapping ourselves. That'll show us!
 
Why is this "a troubling trend" ???

More CO2 is very good news in at least 2 ways:
First, more CO2 is great for plants. Despite the uptick in the recent decades, CO2 levels are still close to the dangerous all-time lows.
Second, increasing emissions means increasing economic activity, which is also great.

"Climate change" is officially dead. Spreading climate hysteria doesn't make sense anymore.

It's a troubling trend because the world isn't a lab, and the damage caused by climate change eats up economic growth. You'll find more details in reports from the NAS and even Berkeley Earth, which was set up by deniers.
 
While I am not some climate change blowhard, there is definitely an element of "You have to work with the data you got" associated with climate change.

It's not perfect, and it's likely never going to be perfect, but our best understanding of global climate right now suggests we're pumping tons of heating gasses into the atmosphere and causing an unnaturally rapid climate shift. Yes there are reasonable counter arguments to this (we only really have 150 years of "reliable" daily climate data etc).

There is a lot of low hanging fruit we could be moving toward rapidly, like nuclear power, that will make it very easy to get off of coal and other heavily poluting fuel sources, and I think a lot of pols are starting to realize they tried to jump off nuclear too fast.

Also, if Orange Man actually had a coherent and realistic approach to reducing global CO2 emissions then I would be right there with him. Unfortunately like most everything he does, his approach to this is weird, disjointed, and mercurial, which is no way to build a long term plan.
 
You can guarantee that any mention of climate change will cause the moronosphere to wake up and start pretending they know better and that the whole thing is a hoax by the deep state. Keep licking those windows Cleetus.

Alternatively, replacing the Bat Signal with Al Gore's face will cause any number of pasty, blue-haired they/them's to spawn into museums, ready to throw paint on priceless works of art. And that's when they're not changing IPCC reports, denying that their infamous hockey stick graph ever existed or quietly removing plaques over parks that 'predicted' climate doom by a certain year (that obviously came and went without so much as a whimper).
 
Alternatively, replacing the Bat Signal with Al Gore's face will cause any number of pasty, blue-haired they/them's to spawn into museums, ready to throw paint on priceless works of art. And that's when they're not changing IPCC reports, denying that their infamous hockey stick graph ever existed or quietly removing plaques over parks that 'predicted' climate doom by a certain year (that obviously came and went without so much as a whimper).

I enjoyed your examples of straw men. You seem good at making them, please post more!
 
It's a troubling trend because the world isn't a lab, and the damage caused by climate change eats up economic growth. You'll find more details in reports from the NAS and even Berkeley Earth, which was set up by deniers
There is no "damage caused by climate change" besides the normal effects of natural climate variability. What's eating up economic growth is climate hysteria - we wasted trillions of dollars to fix imaginary problems that might appear in the nebulous future, but climate parameters still keep changing the same way they did before wasting the money.
We could have used the wasted money to fix so many real problems ...
 
Why is this "a troubling trend" ???

More CO2 is very good news in at least 2 ways:
First, more CO2 is great for plants. Despite the uptick in the recent decades, CO2 levels are still close to the dangerous all-time lows.
Second, increasing emissions means increasing economic activity, which is also great.

"Climate change" is officially dead. Spreading climate hysteria doesn't make sense anymore.
When you haven't got the slightest clue. No, it's not "great" for plants. For instance:

"Scientists investigating the impact of increasing carbon dioxide on global staple foods like rice and wheat have made some concerning findings: Higher CO2 levels make many foods less nutritious, reducing protein, vitamins, and critical micronutrients like zinc and iron."

Bon appetit.
 
First it was called global warming...then after the 90's "spike" in temperature in the early 2000's and the temperatures globally dropped, they renamed it climate change. This was around the time of solar cycle 23-24. When the public didn't react to that, they renamed it climate emergency.
Outside of a HUGE volcanic eruption or a global thermonuclear war, the temperatures go up and down all the time.
 
My lead pumper in Texas could take you to many Exxon and Chevron oil wells and natural gas wells that are leaking all kinds of crud. They get federal subsidies that I don't qualify for (too small) yet it's my little company that has to follow the rules tightly and run a tight ship because if I don't, the Railroad Commission could end me easily whereas one of the big 4, that would just be another Monday in court.
 
First it was called global warming...then after the 90's "spike" in temperature in the early 2000's and the temperatures globally dropped, they renamed it climate change. This was around the time of solar cycle 23-24. When the public didn't react to that, they renamed it climate emergency.
Outside of a HUGE volcanic eruption or a global thermonuclear war, the temperatures go up and down all the time.
Except they aren't going up and down, they are just going up... How much evidence do the moronosphere need before they pull their heads out their arseh0les and unstick their tongues from the windows?
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
 
Why is this "a troubling trend" ???

More CO2 is very good news in at least 2 ways:
First, more CO2 is great for plants. Despite the uptick in the recent decades, CO2 levels are still close to the dangerous all-time lows.
Second, increasing emissions means increasing economic activity, which is also great.

"Climate change" is officially dead. Spreading climate hysteria doesn't make sense anymore.
I haven't heard anything THAT stupid in a long time.
Thanks for the laughs.
 
Last edited:
Back