14
Thursday 3rd December 2020 | PALATINATE
SciTech
‘Big Oil’ is to blame for climate change, not us
Elise Garcon Science and Technology Editor The environment section of the paper is often dominated by preachy articles telling us that our Netflix addiction is killing the planet, or that now is the time to invest in reusable metal straws. Although individual changes should not be ignored in the fight against climate change, the responsibility is not ours alone. Over 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are produced by just 100 fossil fuel companies. This contribution is no mistake: at the same time as scientists warned against the catastrophe that rising carbon emissions could cause, companies such as Shell and Exxon spent billions of dollars on thwarting any action.
Over 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are produced by just 100 fossil fuel companies They funded politicians who denied climate change, halting any international attempts to reduce fossil fuel consumption. They set up think tanks with the sole purpose of finding them
not culpable. Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway’s book Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how these companies spread misinformation and doubt to silence those who oppose them. And yet they still try to present themselves as environmentally conscious. Shell’s recent ads, which mentioned climate change, had to be removed, as they violated Facebook’s transparency policy.
Companies such as Shell and Exxon funded politicians who denied climate change These companies champion their green energy schemes in their advertising, but when you look further, they are purposefully vague. Shell publicly promotes it’s low carbon technologies, but these were mysteriously missing from the 2018 report. Investments in oil and gas, to the tune of $25 billion, however, were not. Multiple studies have confirmed that it is unlikely that climate change can be curbed without retiring fossil fuel infrastructure all together, yet pressure is still put on the individual consumer: to buy local, to eat vegan, to pay for renewable
energy. While these efforts are important and commendable, they simply aren’t affordable or accessible to the average person.
Through skillful marketing, big oil companies have cast doubts on science Companies have exploited this, greenwashing themselves to turn a profit. Action feels futile, and we individuals feel responsible. Climate change has been presented as an unstoppable force, but it wasn’t always this way. An investigation in 2015 revealed that the oil company Exxon knew about climate change for decades before it was widely accepted, but concealed this, and continued to increase its emissions. From this it is clear: these companies will say and do everything they can to keep
extracting and burning fuel. Even at this crucial turning point, where we must limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celcius, the industry intends to increase production, spending $15 trillion on developing new reserves.
Exxon knew about climate change for decades before it was widely accepted, but concealed it We have been lied to; we are under the illusion of control, and are told that we as the consumer must make responsible choices to ensure that we do not fall into climatic catastrophe. In reality, through skilful (Tatham Oddie via Flickr)
marketing, big oil companies have cast doubts on the science, convincing many that without oil that poverty reduction would be impossible. They have captured our town planning and transport systems through financial influence on politicians, making good choices all but impossible. We are in a cycle of consumerism where a large amount of products are produced by a small group of companies. Ethical options are difficult to find, and often inaccessible.
Action feels futile, and we individuals feel responsible I personally will not stop taking reusable bags to the shops, and I maintain that reducing our meat intake is the best thing we can do for our planet on an individual level. But companies like Exxon have taken the climate movement and corrupted it. Watching just one more episode on Netflix isn’t killing the planet: oil companies, and their greed, are. GOT AN IDEA FOR AN ARTICLE? WE’D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU!
Send your thoughts to scitech@palatinate.org.uk
The case for CDs: it’s all about your internet usage Jonny Tiplady The 21st century has seen mankind cross the threshold into a more digital world. Laptops, tablets and smartphones have made likes, retweets and leftclicks feel like a function of our brains. And in 2020, dependence on our digital devices has been almost impossible to avoid. But as we all boot up our electronic appendages during isolation, we should reflect on the physical impact of our virtual habits. As you stream your favourite songs, rewatch your favourite Friends episode, or send a little ‘thank you’ email, do you know how you are affecting the environment? You’ve probably received at least ten emails today already. What might surprise you is that each email carries an environmental burden. A spam email can release 0.3g of CO2 emissions; an email with an attachment can contribute 50g of CO2. An average business user generates 135kg of CO2 each year from their emails alone. That is the equivalent of driving 200 miles. Cutting out unnecessary emails could reduce carbon emissions by over 16,000 tonnes
each year. So, those newsletters you signed up to five years ago? They may have saved you 15% at ASOS at some point, but now it’s time to unsubscribe. Despite now seeming outdated, SMS texting is still the most carbon-efficient way of communicating digitally. A text generates 0.014g of CO2. Messaging on a third-party app like Facebook or WhatsApp, though, is almost as harmful as an email. Now that is probably something you did not want to read. As the most popular communication apps now, the companies running them have a burden to carry. You would be forgiven for thinking that shifting online would make us more environmentally friendly. Fewer physical letters, records, DVD players and plastic pens surely mean we can save more of Earth’s materials. And it’s true, our plastic use over the last few decades has decreased. Unfortunately, plastic consumption is not our main concern; greenhouse gas emissions are far more damaging. Although the information we store has transcended from physical to digital, greenhouse gas emissions have dramatically increased. 2%
of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are produced through data storage. While this may not seem significant, it is the same as the global airline industry. So, shifting online does not always bring the benefits you might think. If there’s a particular album you plan to play on repeat, buying a physical copy may actually be greener. 27 full streams of an album uses more energy than the manufacture of a physical CD. This is because streaming uses data stored on servers, which take a sizeable amount of energy to run. Playing CDs and vinyl requires minimal energy. Whipping out the old record player may do more than aid your retro image; it may just save the planet. Some companies, Spotify amongst them, have chosen to close their data centres in favour of using Google’s Cloud Platform. This is a step in the right direction towards greener data storage. Across the globe, 4.1 billion people – more than half the world’s population – use the internet. All the energy from these individuals adds up. Internet activities account for 3.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is expected to
The guilty pleasure of white noise (Javier Hirschfield via Getty Images)
double by 2025. Internet browsers are somewhat of a disputed topic. While Google estimate that each search on their engine generates 0.2g of CO2, other, independent studies have estimated closer to 10g. This is a huge discrepancy, especially when you consider there are greener options. Ecosia, founded in 2009, is fighting the good fight on the Internet space. They pledge to plant a tree for every 45 searches on their platform. This will be of immense importance in offsetting our ever-
rising carbon emissions. If you isolate these examples, each seems fairly innocuous. Yet, it is a sign of the dangers of excess which could plague future generations. This is not a plea to boycott the internet and its plethora of offshoots: we’ve come too far for that. Yet, if we all make an effort to curb unnecessary usage, like not playing Spotify for hours as background music, we can lead ourselves towards a greener space, both physically and online.
