[jblok]

I get all of that. You're spot on.

My point was just addressing the main theme of the article which is trying to make out that if we just got rid of these companies, we'd cut emissions by 71%. Well yeh sure, but then the world wouldn't continue to function as normal.

As individuals, we have the same methods as we always have. Don't drive when you can walk, use renewable energy, get an electric car, shop local, etc.

And of course, regulating both "ourselves", such that demand goes away. E.g. banning sales of diesel cars. And regulating businesses so that they aren't polluting unduly on our behalf e.g. carbon capture in power stations.

[undersuit]

>the main theme of the article which is trying to make out that if we just got rid of these companies

That's the second time you've said that. What article are you reading?

The one I'm reading from this thread says: “Our purpose is not to name and shame firms, our purpose is to provide transparency and call attention to the quite extraordinary fact that just 100 companies played a crucial role in the problem,” said Pedro Faria, technical director of the Carbon Majors Database, which collected the information for the report. “It’s obvious they have a share of responsibility in the solution.”

I think that last sentence is key. These 100 companies are profiting off of creating the majority of the problem, some even maliciously. Does levying responsibility upon these companies necessitate their destruction?