Profile picture
Greenpeace USA
@greenpeaceusa
, 7 tweets, 3 min read Read on Twitter
Why are we here? Only 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global carbon emissions since 1988. #PeopleVsOil (1/7)
Many of the refineries here are operated by some of those very companies, like ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell. #PeoplevsOil (2/7) bit.ly/2ue11eC
This is the largest petrochemical complex in the US, and the 2nd largest in the world. These facilities aren't only fueling the #ClimateCrisis, they're also threatening the health and lives... (3/7)
of the communities that surround them, mostly low-income and communities of color. This is the definition of environmental racism. (4/7) bit.ly/2ma0JU0
The oil industry has spent millions trying to convince us that we can't survive without oil, but that's a lie. (5/7)
Just 10% of oil subsidies would be enough to pay for a global transition to #RenewableEnergy. (6/7) bit.ly/2m6GlTI
Another world is possible. Power concedes nothing unless we demand it. #PeopleVsOil (7/7)
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Greenpeace USA
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Related hashtags

#PeopleVsOil #ClimateCrisis #RenewableEnergy

More from @greenpeaceusa see all

Profile picture
Greenpeace USA
@greenpeaceusa
(1) So why did we bring these swamp creatures to David Bernhardt's confirmation hearing for Interior Secretary this morning? Well... Bernhardt is a former oil and gas lobbyist who previously worked to help corporate polluters get their hands on public lands.
(2) Now he's about to become head of the Interior Department — which would put him in charge of the very same public lands and waters that he worked to get access to as an oil & gas lobbyist.
(3) Trump campaigned hard on the idea of “draining the swamp”. As we know, he's done the exact opposite — and Bernhardt might be the most blatant example of that. bit.ly/2TFZPKf
Read 7 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Glen Peters
@Peters_Glen
Another day, another bleak scenario...

@WoodMackenzie emerged with a conservative outlook:
* Current pathway more consistent with 3°C
* A carbon constrained pathway leading to 2.5°C could conceivably happen
* Very low confidence that 2°C achievable

1/
eto.think.woodmac.com
"There’s resistance to achieving the aspirational targets to reduce global carbon emissions set in Paris...The energy mix is not changing nearly as quickly as the world needs it to...there is still no carbon price in many major consuming countries or market segments."

2/
"the technologies essential for decarbonisation remain nascent; policy & regulation lack global coordination; & investment in the production of hydrocarbons & in the sectors that consume them persists at a high rate because money can be made."

3/
Read 5 tweets
Profile picture
“Bentley” Addison
@ashkenegro
The way we talk of overpopulation being the primary driver for climate crisis is, frankly, racist bullshit that smacks of colonialism. (1/)
Niger, Angola, Mali, and Chad have the four highest birth rates in the world, each over 43 per 1000 population. In comparison, Japan’s is 7.5, Canada’s is 10.2, Chinas is 12.1, and the US’s is 12.4. (2/)
Okay. So Niger’s birth rate is over three times that of the USA! that’s so much more. (3/)
Read 16 tweets
Profile picture
Stephen Barlow
@SteB777
"Theresa May commits to net zero UK carbon emissions by 2050 " - This sounds momentous, but it is far too little far too late. We are seeing profound impacts now. Imagine 30 years of high global carbon emissions.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1) I feel unworthy of taking on a role of spelling this all out, but I have thought about the big picture of where this is heading for most of my life, and see the parts of the big picture so many are missing.
2) The most common error in thinking about these matters, is to think grand but inadequate measures will save us. This is not like fooling an electorate with grand rhetoric and propaganda.
Read 21 tweets
Profile picture
Jeff McFadden
@homemadeguitars
Pondering carbon and the global furnace. A brief thread.
2. We (we who believe, we who care) are laser focused on carbon emissions. We would pave half of North America to install machines to generate "energy" without emitting carbon.
But things have always emitted carbon. Hell, *I* emit carbon. So... What's going on?
3. For a brief time - 2 1/2, 3 billion years - carbon went around and around in circles. CO2 in the atmosphere was removed, refined into carbon and oxygen, the oxygen was emitted directly into the atmosphere and the carbon bound with hydrogen and nitrogen as organisms.
Read 21 tweets
Profile picture
Ann Whitten
@WhittenAnn
Climate Change, blah, blah let's talk some truth. From fashion to music if you want to make it big and become rich the United States is the place to be, right? Yes, but at what cost? read below for some interesting facts that few talk about in the climate change hysteria.
Most of us think that the US shipped jobs overseas due to cheap labor which lowers the price of goods and services, but does it really and if so at what cost to the planet and humans?
The fashion industry has a disastrous impact on the environment. In fact, it is the second largest polluter in the world, just after the oil industry. And the environmental damage is increasing as the industry grows.
Read 39 tweets
Profile picture
Katharine Hayhoe
@KHayhoe
The Fourth US National Climate Assessment was released on Friday. Since then, a number of politicians + pundits have made statements about it that are not accurate. As an author, I'm here to set the record straight. Here we go! (thread) nca2018.globalchange.gov
... when your phone goes dead right at the first tweet ...
First, a WH spokesperson said the report was based on the “most extreme” scenario. No: the report considered a very broad range of scenarios, from one where carbon emissions go negative to one where they continue to grow. Source: nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/
Read 23 tweets

Trending hashtags

#Zurich #ExtinctionObedience #Dublin #Hub #Fintech #KeepingItReal #abpoli #capitalisation #EnoughIsEnough #London #ai #TrumpLies #Amsterdam #energy #Very #SanFrancisco #RoyMoore #artificialintelligence #income #IT #bcpoli #carbon #Paris #ACEs #climatechange
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!