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

[scavengerspc]

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.

They had to make the change partly because the future MAGA genius crowd decided that global temperatures could somehow be determined by the temperatures on their front porch.
For reference on why it was needed, search "Jim Inhofe snow ball in Congress".
The other reason is at times year-year tracking indicated lower average temperatures. And I mean very rarely, it was NOT a "spike", and it was not in or after the 90s. And, we never again saw a drop in year over global temps after the 70s. (Chart below)
Even then, temps at the poles were still rising, causing melting glacial ice to continue to flow into the oceans. (Remember, GLACIAL ice!) Nobody but CONServatives care if icebergs melt.

So the climate change rebranding, is a dumb down for those people.
And if this thread is any indication, it needs to be dumbed down even further.

Graph-Dashboard: Global Average Surface Temperature

Global average surface temperature has risen 0.14 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since 1880. The rate of warming has more than doubled since 1981.

www.climate.gov

 

[Tantor]

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.

Not true. Climate change absolutely does not eat up economic growth. One of the effects of CO2 increase has been a general 'greening' of the world.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-fa...ide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

 

[kiwigraeme]

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.

You guys hit and run with some BS , we could point out all that is wrong with this , but you don't care , you will post it again and again

You think Aramco is so poor if can't even get even one paper published showing climate change is not eal and that CO2 is great for weed growth.

Water is great for humans - just drink 8 gallons a day - you will become big and strong , you won't need any other nutrients

Enjoy paying tariffs on fertilizers from Canada -oh that's right corn and wheat only need CO2 - unlike the weeds who only survive in nutrient dense soil.
No worries spray the fields with chemical after chemical - now no oversight departements a win win , especially as can't export that junk to countries who do checks with their tariffs

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Sweet! So changing my lifestyle doesn't matter. Thanks for letting me know Skye!

 

[scavengerspc]

Pollution sucks, but has absolutely nothing to do with CO2.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it's vital to every living thing on Earth.
You exhale CO2, buddy ... are you a polluter?

And @Tantor
We need rain. The ecosystem is built for it. But we all know it can't handle it in huge amounts.
The term "natural balance" is lost on people like you, isn't it?

 

[p51d007]

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

Yeah, 100-200-300 years of data is what, given the age of the Earth? A few seconds?

 

[daffy duck]

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 never read so much crap in my life. Everything you posted is patently false. This is straight out of a Trump manifesto.

And BTW plants are already starting to suffer from CO2 overload, just like the oceans cannot absorb more C02 and which are rapidly acidifying. Condition on Earth today haven't been seen for 8-10 million years or more.

 

[scavengerspc]

Yeah, 100-200-300 years of data is what, given the age of the Earth? A few seconds?

There is WAYYYYY more data than 100-300 years. And the last 75-100 is where we get our problems.
Please. Learn stuff. Here is a good start.

Here's How Scientists Reconstruct Earth's Past Climates

Scientists apply different methods to the geologic record with the goal of better understanding and quantifying ancient Earth's temperatures.

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Xelions]

I'd really like to look at your source material.

Which Part?

 

[bclaymiles]

Where do you start with this...the level of ignorance is off the charts....

Name _any_ other air pollutant that, without that pollutant, life would cease to exist.

 

[bclaymiles]

The problem with the premise of the article, and articles similar to it, is that the companies aren't the ones producing CO2. They produce the carbon-based fuels. You and everyone else who uses those carbon-based fuels are the ones producing the CO2.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Which Part?

"Renewables are great, but there still is a material and fuel cost to them in production, installation and end of life."

 

[Xelions]

"Renewables are great, but there still is a material and fuel cost to them in production, installation and end of life."

Here's the source...

You gotta mine raw materials or source recycled materials, then you've gotta convert them for use in manufacturing. You then ship the materials to a manufacturing site. The product is made and then shipped to the customer for installation. And regularly it's recommended to clean panels to maintain efficiency too. And then after 20+ years maybe longer the panel needs to be recycled or repurposed. During this whole stage you'll use fuel and energy to bring the product from a-z. I think that's pretty obvious. Why would I need to source that. I learnt only recently in an IT course that the push in IT is tracking the full life cycle of a product to ensure sustainability - how accurate and far this goes depends on the regulations and business.

Just keep in mind I am pro renewable but only for specific renewables. Hydro and wind can do large scale destruction if done improperly.

Being green for the full lifecycle of a product can be unrealistic for many applications. What I've seen that's a lot worse is that many drivers in oz use a vehicle to and from work daily on their own. Small vehicles should be taxed a lot less, even for registration whilst larger vehicles should be taxed heavily. Why does 1 person need a 4WD, Large sedan, or large vehicle to get to work and get back home? Besides the most obvious reasons. 1 person in a 4-6+ seater vehicle - dah stupid!

 

[pnntmp]

And BTW plants are already starting to suffer from CO2 overload, just like the oceans cannot absorb more C02 and which are rapidly acidifying. Condition on Earth today haven't been seen for 8-10 million years or more.

That's one true nonsense.
How do you know "plants are already starting to suffer" ???. Did you poll them or something? Do they speak to you?
The Earth today is greener compared to 50 years ago, crops are better, how that translates into suffering? Species becoming more and bigger are not suffering, they are thriving.

CO2 is literally plants' food. Your claim that plants are suffering from more food is ...

 

[scavengerspc]

That's one true nonsense.
How do you know "plants are already starting to suffer" ???. Did you poll them or something? Do they speak to you?

Probably because @daffy duck did something you and your clueless friends would never dream of doing.
Research and learn.

More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections

The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.

yaleclimateconnections.org

"The myth that CO2 is plant food and that “extra” CO2 therefore can’t be bad is an example of a logical fallacy."

Fact check: Excess CO2 harms plants more than helps them, experts say

While CO2 can stimulate plant growth, too much of the gas creates adverse effects on vegetation and the environment as a whole.

www.usatoday.com

"CO2 has been shown to increase plant growth, experts said, but this growth has a limit. Adverse effects from excess CO2, like global warming, ultimately hurt plants more than help them"

I can't think of one example where the intake of extra food is healthy for any form of life, but if you want direct proof of that, just go hang out at a tRUMP rally.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Here's the source...

You gotta mine raw materials or source recycled materials, then you've gotta convert them for use in manufacturing. You then ship the materials to a manufacturing site. The product is made and then shipped to the customer for installation. And regularly it's recommended to clean panels to maintain efficiency too. And then after 20+ years maybe longer the panel needs to be recycled or repurposed. During this whole stage you'll use fuel and energy to bring the product from a-z. I think that's pretty obvious. Why would I need to source that. I learnt only recently in an IT course that the push in IT is tracking the full life cycle of a product to ensure sustainability - how accurate and far this goes depends on the regulations and business.

Just keep in mind I am pro renewable but only for specific renewables. Hydro and wind can do large scale destruction if done improperly.

Being green for the full lifecycle of a product can be unrealistic for many applications. What I've seen that's a lot worse is that many drivers in oz use a vehicle to and from work daily on their own. Small vehicles should be taxed a lot less, even for registration whilst larger vehicles should be taxed heavily. Why does 1 person need a 4WD, Large sedan, or large vehicle to get to work and get back home? Besides the most obvious reasons. 1 person in a 4-6+ seater vehicle - dah stupid!

I meant a source link that I can cross reference.

 

[pnntmp]

Probably because @daffy duck did something you and your clueless friends would never dream of doing.
Research and learn.

"The myth that CO2 is plant food and that “extra” CO2 therefore can’t be bad is an example of a logical fallacy."

"CO2 has been shown to increase plant growth, experts said, but this growth has a limit. Adverse effects from excess CO2, like global warming, ultimately hurt plants more than help them"

More nonsense. The Earth is notably greener, crops are better, plants are bigger, formerly deserted areas have plants and fauna again ... and all that is bad, or even "suffering" ??? Seriously?
Give us another example of more food causing suffering, please. Or plants are unique in that regard?
If there's more CO2 than the plants can process (we are very very very very very from that), they'll simply not process it. Plants can't choke or become obese, you know,

 

[scavengerspc]

More nonsense. The Earth is notably greener, crops are better, plants are bigger, formerly deserted areas have plants and fauna again ... and all that is bad, or even "suffering" ??? Seriously?
Give us another example of more food causing suffering, please. Or plants are unique in that regard?
If there's more CO2 than the plants can process (we are very very very very very from that), they'll simply not process it. Plants can't choke or become obese, you know,

So believe you? Not NOAA, the NWS, Harvard, the European Climate Foundation, Penn, and Yale. Good luck with that to someone that said "More CO2 is very good news"
and 'Climate change is officially dead'
It's an unfortunate list of plants that just can't deal with high CO2.
In the meantime, I strongly suggest you learn about this stuff (it is possible) because you have to know what you sound like.
Denial of empirical evidence is foolish.

 

[Beerfloat]

First, more CO2 is great for plants.

Which kind of plant are you?

 

[Mister_K]

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.

Yeah.. absolutely not.

 

[m3tavision]

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.

and....?
For instance: Some plants don't like direct sunlight..! So again what is your point..?


Co2 is NOT a pollutant.
And anyone tied to, or fighting for, or carry a torch against, or even prattling on about... are absolutely not educated!

Pollutants are what the World inhabitants should be concerned about... but China is not paying Activist to scream about pollutants, China spend billions in soft-money trying to fill the heads of lemmings about Co2 and "Greenness" to slwo their economies down, while they get ahead laughing at our ignorant youth who feed off lies.. (Which IS a hoax.)

C02 is a gas... that Animals (humans) exhaust. So hold your breath, if u believe in "climate hoax"



Pollutants are plastic, or trash, or caustic chemicals dumping that CHINA & India does.

You young kids do not even understand that China is paying for all these "Green" environmentalist to disrupt the Western Society, as CHINA is thee LARGEST polluter in the world and India is next.

Nobody cares about Co2... (thay are only paid to care) what EVERYONE is really upset about is POLLUTANTS & trash. Nations who dump their trash in the ocean, instead of spending Billion incinerating it, etc...

Dumping chemicals into waterways...

People need to stop with their Climate Hoaxing... before there were people, the Climate of Planet earth has changed in a cyclical nature... we all studied this is school, except they stopped teaching it a few decades ago, to make our children ignorant.

The Co2 lvl of earth have drastically changed ovr 4.5 billions years... but you know what has ONLY happened since China & India became an Industrialized Nation.... POLLUTING.

Ironically, it is CCP who are paying for the Climate hoax, bcz they do not want pressure to clean up their own Countries from polluting into our oceans and waterways...!


Learn the truth by using common sense.

 

[yannus]

and....?
For instance: Some plants don't like direct sunlight..! So again what is your point..?


Co2 is NOT a pollutant.
And anyone tied to, or fighting for, or carry a torch against, or even prattling on about... are absolutely not educated!

Pollutants are what the World inhabitants should be concerned about... but China is not paying Activist to scream about pollutants, China spend billions in soft-money trying to fill the heads of

(...)

Ironically, it is CCP who are paying for the Climate hoax, bcz they do not want pressure to clean up their own Countries from polluting into our oceans and waterways...!


Learn the truth by using common sense.

Finally somebody with common sense. The only correction I would make is that China is not the source of the hoax but one of its voices. The real source is much higher. As you know ALL western governments, ALL NGOs, the WEF, Bill G... these people serve a global agenda where China (and the BRICS) is the center indeed, but not the origin.

 

[m3tavision]

Finally somebody with common sense. The only correction I would make is that China is not the source of the hoax but one of its voices. The real source is much higher. As you know ALL western governments, ALL NGOs, the WEF, Bill G... these people serve a global agenda where China (and the BRICS) is the center indeed, but not the origin.

Climate Change is a massive social hoax perpetrated by Globalists..!
ie soros/ccp/eu (davos)

 

[Megalomaniac]

Humans in general emit over 35 Billion tons of CO2 each year.
The average human emits over 2.3 pounds of CO2 each day.
CO2 accounts for about 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere.
Guess what: Plants need that CO2 to make photosynthesis happen.
Just targeting CO2 instead of Sulfur Dioxides and formaldehyde is nothing more than a money grab. You're ultimately punishing people for breathing.

Taxing them for breathing.

 

[monkeylove]

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 ...

Floods, droughts, forest fires, etc. Eats up around a third of global economic growth. That's why insurance companies have been raising rates.

There's no "climate hysteria". If any, it's the opposite.