100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

Ah yes, what's better than trying to shift the blame from the actual people and groups doing this, to individuals, who often don't even know better? No need to address the companies or (dare I say) suggest regulations. It's the consumer who should think about this, he's the center of the market universe - besides 7 billion other centers - and only he - with the coincidental cooperation of all other 7 billion people - can change this. How? Why by consuming... ethically. Then the companies can still go on doing what they so, find market, created deals nobody knows of, destroy the environment and infiltrate governments with their "special interests". All the consumer has to do is spend more money on fancy stuff, and he doesn't have to feel guilty anymore. It's all ok! It might not be easy to ensure that all the people consume "correctly", but it's sure easier than trying to address the companies to produce "correctly". It's just basis economics.

I agree with your argument that since consumers are the ones who demand the product, they are the reason such companies exist.

However, customers typically have little information on how many greenhouse gases are produced for a given product they buy, and especially not when it counts -- that is, in a store before a purchase -- so they cannot be reasonably expected to vote with their wallet.

One solution might be a combination of:

1) Labeling all products with the emissions that took to create them, so customers can easily vote with their wallet. Perhaps display them next to prices, perhaps with a label like Nutritional Facts on food products, or like a warning when some emissions threshold is exceeded, like smoking risks on cigarette cartons. Customers should not have to watch documentaries or do research on which companies are environmentally friendly and which aren't, but rather have that information given at purchase time.

One or both of:

2a) Subsidizing environmentally-friendly ways of production (perhaps even just for a time) so that these companies can survive against their coal-burning competitors. This way, customers voting with their wallet don't have to pay extreme prices for alternatives just because they think reducing greenhouse gases is good for the world -- with subsidies or tariffs, we could make alternatives somewhat price-competitive.

2b) Taxing goods made with too many greenhouse gases (i.e. the reverse of 2a).

>We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services.

We do. But, what is your point there? Are you saying that individuals have the ability to group up and stop it by not buying? Because that would be true. But, there's always that problem of realism that gets in the way. In theory, yes, we could pretty much solve or do anything as humans. Does that mean its realistically possible? No. Corporations have grown up with capitalistic countries, and are ingrained in its culture and work.

Sure, I'll stop shopping at Walmart. Until I see my grocery bills go up, and my savings dipped into to pay bills. Its the same story for many, many others.

People don't know any better, and even if they did, and we all grouped together, these conglomerates have such a gargantuan amount of money stored away that they can bet it won't last. They'll win that bet. Employees go on strike, get new ones. Employees try to form a union, close the store, re-open a month later.

When you consider the absolutetely massive size of the money and assets here, the very notion that its 'our' fault, is true, but its reasonings misleading.

If Alice pays Bob to kill Cathy, I think we can all agree that Alice and Bob are both felons.

If Alice pays Bob to procure a tuna sandwich for her, and Bob chooses a means of procural that kills Cathy as a byproduct, common sense dictates that Bob is again a felon, while the amount of responsibility born by Alice depends on the extent to which she was aware of what Bob was going to do.

That's not how the market works. Consumer preferences are expressed by what's available in the market not the other way round.

And even leaving market mechanics aside 'demand' doesn't justify 'anything'.

A civilized society operates on rules and regulations. This is a problem of regulations, capture and unconstrained behavior by corporates.

>We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services.

Utterly wrong under multiple criteria.

1. If you read the article you'll see a number of these companies exist in polities that are in no way representative democracies without even the genuine goal (let alone a somewhat decent implementation) of a full market system, making them insulated from even general population pressure let alone market pressure.

2. For the ones that exist in the 1st World under reasonably market-based economies, you are still wrong, because the entire point of a market economy is that the price represents that all costs, ie., no externalities. Consumers can of course factor in non-cost factors at their option, but when it comes to something like pollution everything associated should be built in and it is absolutely not the end consumers fault if some company is committing fraud by failing to deal with externalities.

It's unfortunate modern conservatives in particular have done a full 180 and grown to hate the Free Market and refuse to implement emissions pricing, but that isn't up to individuals in their role as consumers (though in a democracy it is their fault in their role as citizens if they're supporting anti-market politicians). If the price of emitting a ton of CO2 or CH4 was simply set at the price of industrially removing (within a year) a ton, then things would be sorted out from there. The vast majority of humanity needs to be involved with externally produced products and/or services to survive in the modern world, that's not some option or crime. The sticker price should be reflecting all costs so they can make appropriate comparisons and choices.

> We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services.

I don't know how this thread is surviving this long without someone arguing with you about this.

The demand is created by (the marketing departments of) the companies. Come on.

This response is SO BAD, it makes me wonder if you're not paid to post it.

They're not just counting the emissions that Exxon (for example) produces by extracting oil. They're counting the emissions from when that oil is burned by the end consumer (say by me in a car) and accounting that back to Exxon.

Yes, this is kinda dumb.

CO2 is invisible.

Pictures makes articles more appealing, easier to understand and profitable.

It's not like they are even lying, you agree there is some smoke an pollutants in there.

What should they take a picture of?

Can't smokestacks, a long time symbol of industry, be just that a symbol? It's not like they are lying about the numbers in the article or even make claims about the picture.

Exactly, this is the fallacy that we need "other people", like politicians to solve climate change for us.

Try voting with your wallet and changing your bank.