Gladly will do so. The claim comes from the Carbon Majors report. This report classifies different scopes of emissions. ‘Scope 3’ accounts for 90% of emissions—except scope 3 are end use emissions. …b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/do… 
If you buy a barrel of oil, and set it on fire, the carbon majors report attributes those emissions to the company that produced them. It’s a bit like charging someone for murder because their grandchildren died in an unrelated incident.
The institute that published the Carbon Majors report is a sham—it is literally a non scientific organization created solely to make this single policy meme
https://twitter.com/yungneocon/status/1332249356100136960
Even taking it at face value, most of the companies are state owned or state supported, and many operate at a loss. The state induces their extraction which sustains the production economy.
https://twitter.com/yungneocon/status/1159185580065992704
I already owned Coffin once on this issue. Contrary to what they say, this is when they blocked me lmfao
https://twitter.com/yungneocon/status/1214409767847944192
There are more criticisms to be had, but I think these 3 more or less seal the deal:
1. It reclassifies end side (consumer, producer & trade) as production side
2. It categorizes state bureaucracies & state owned firms likes private corporations
3. The think tank itself is a sham
1. It reclassifies end side (consumer, producer & trade) as production side
2. It categorizes state bureaucracies & state owned firms likes private corporations
3. The think tank itself is a sham
It’s interesting to note that the first time around, after I repeatedly said that the issue was trade, production & the state, Coffin, rather than even reading just the report the stat came from, was put off my by citations & persisted in saying I ~*blamed*~ consumers
Coffin has a serious deficit in charitable literacy, (as, for example, the land back thread shows), and a serious deficit in basic research skills.
This is the thread Coffin presumably trawled to find my comment pointing out their nonsense. Coffin is also owned in this thread, documenting the spreading of falsehoods around land back
https://twitter.com/AmautaNew/status/1446617998505172992
Since I did my other threads almost 2 years ago, Carbon Majors has produced some updates, a look at them shows the methodology has not changed climateaccountability.org/publications.h…
While they do offer some distinction between state & investor owned, it remains somewhat spurious given that states are also investor owners. In light of this they also reframe their claim as 63%/90 companies but by the same methodology
Notably they lopped off ten of the companies, so that the majority would be private (again, spurious here, due to state ownership through other means) rather than state owned. Some of the few affiliated scientists with the org have taken to relabeling these results
For example on this ocean acidification report which merely applies a slew multiplier to CO2 to calculate sink flows, and then attributes emissions responsibility in the same way iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…
This is a great example of Latour’s analysis in ‘Science in Action’ where a ‘fact’ has taken on a life of its own, is translated & retranslated, labeled & relabeled, all contributing to its longevity.
So Carbon Accountability Institute has gotten slightly more sophisticated in their BS (but note the original almost decade old report still forms the basis of most of their claims! ) since I last looked into them but their fundamental claims are the same
It seems they responded to criticism of their handling of state vs. private ownership by knocking off several of the state owned companies and reframing the analysis as 90 companies or 88 companies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
