90 Companies to Blame for 63% of Global Emissions
Chevron, BP, Exxon racked up 9% alone
By Arden Dier, Newser Staff
Posted Nov 21, 2013 7:15 AM CST
In this Monday, Oct. 21, 2013 photo, smoke billows from an oil refinery in Kawasaki, southwest of Tokyo.   (AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)

(Newser) – Want to personally thank those largely responsible for putting greenhouse gases into the air? Fewer than 100 phone calls will do the trick. According to new research, 90 companies have produced 63% of the emissions of carbon dioxide and methane since the dawn of the industrial age. Chevron, BP, and Exxon together caused more than 9% of emissions alone, the Guardian reports. All but seven offenders on the list are oil, gas, and coal producers—roughly 30% are state-owned—while half the emissions were produced in the last 25 years, the analysis shows.

"There are thousands of oil, gas, and coal producers in the world," says a climate researcher. "But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil, if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two." Al Gore calls the research a "crucial step forward," one that he sees as spreading the onus of taking action from governments to corporations. "Those who are historically responsible for polluting our atmosphere have a clear obligation to be part of the solution," he says. The analysis will be published in Climatic Change.

View 1 more image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
90 Companies to Blame for 63% of Global Emissions is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 52 comments
Dec 2, 2013 4:41 PM CST
The Obama administration is effectively banning the construction of new coal-fired power plants, a move officials admit will have little to no impact on global warming. “The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission change … by 2022,” the agency writes in its proposal to limit greenhouse gas emissions. “EPA knows there aren’t benefits,” Dan Simmons, director of regulatory and state affairs at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA and environmentalists are being disingenuous when they claim this rule will have an impact on the climate or the environment.” Last week, the EPA unveiled the first ever carbon emissions limits for new power power plants, hailing them as the first step to combating global warming and protecting future generations. “Climate change is one of the most significant public health challenges of our time. By taking commonsense action to limit carbon pollution from new power plants, we can slow the effects of climate change and fulfill our obligation to ensure a safe and healthy environment for our children,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. The rule “will contribute to the actions required to slow or reverse the accumulation of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, which is necessary to protect against projected climate change impacts and risks.” Why ban coal power if it won’t even put a dent in global warming? Critics say this is because the EPA is trying to mask the high costs of compliance by not claiming that the proposal would create any benefits.
Dec 1, 2013 5:05 PM CST
You should call and thank them. Without all this cheap energy we would not have the world we live in today. If carbon in the air is such an issue for warming, then why isn't Mars warmer? It's atmosphere is primarily CO2. Oh wait, it is farther from the sun, so it is naturally colder. This may be an oil based economy, but it runs on electricity and coal is the heart of cheap electricity for America. Any policy that seeks to reduce coal burning only harms the middle class.
Dec 1, 2013 4:43 PM CST
Global warming is nothing more than an emotional based war on Capitalism. What better way to dupe people into hating large corporations than to make up a myth that their existance will kill us all! Perhaps we should start telling people that the advancement of gay marriage will lead to God blowing up the earth in 20 years! Same method of argument, different sides.