Corporate Carbon

Since 19882, when climate change

was recognized as a global issue,

over 100 corporate energy

companies, such as ExxonMobil and

ConocoPhillips, have been

responsible for nearly 71% of

industrial emissions, not including

other consumer items such as food

companies that have produced over 630 million metric tons of greenhouse gases….every year.

Despite these high numbers, most of these large corporate companies have failed to

reduce carbon emissions because of the production time and resources it takes to create these

products that we, the consumers, buy. These corporate companies fail to reach their reduction

targets because not all levels of production, along with the actual use of the product by the

consumer, are accounted for.

For example, the American tissue company, Procter and Gamble (P&G), generates over

17.8 million metric tons of greenhouse gases every year through the production of paper, hygiene

1
Concerned Scientists, U. of. (2013, December 9). Largest producers of industrial carbon
emissions. Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/largest-producers-industrial-carbon-emissions
2
Nations, U. (2007, June). From Stockholm to Kyoto: A brief history of climate change. United
Nations. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/stockholm-kyoto-brief-history-climate-change#:~:text=In%2
01988%2C%20global%20warming%20and,public%20debate%20and%20political%20agenda
products, and baby products. They have come up with a target goal to reduce emissions by 50%

by 2030. However, this goal does in include all greenhouse gas emissions. Their target only

emphasizes the emissions from Scope 1 and Scope 2 but leaves out Scope 3.

These three types of scope levels3 are to determine where these emissions come from.

Scope 1 and 2 come from emissions created by the company’s own facilities, including power

plants, factories, and transportation vehicles. Since these first two scopes come from the

company itself, it is easier to track and have a set number of how much emissions they generate.

On the other hand, Scope 3 emissions come from raw materials and then the use or disposal of

the product. These come from third parties, so it is much harder to track. For example, P&G’s

Scope 3 emissions from raw materials are estimated to add another 8.6 million metric tons that

were not accounted for in their stated goal. The reason their Scope 3 emissions account for a

large amount of generated gases is because of the harvest action of virgin pulp used in their

tissue products that make up an additional 1.5 million metric tons.

P&G is not the only company to leave out their Scope 3 emissions when calculating their

generated gases, such as Kimberly Clarke. This corporate company has also not included Scope

3 emissions in their target, and has created over 10 million metric tons more than their estimated

generated emissions.

Corporations such as P&G and Kimberly Clarke have an immense control over the

economy and hold a large part in helping fight climate change from the amount of power they

have gained. They are able to create policy change and influence what consumers buy at a much

3
Putt del Pino and Larsen, S. and J. (2009, September 21). Operational boundaries of GHG Emissions.
World Resources Institute. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from
https://www.wri.org/data/operational-boundaries-ghg-emissions
faster pace than any other group, hence their importance on addressing the issues that excessive

carbon emissions have lead to the increase in climate change.

Currently, carbon emissions are at the highest they have ever been; specifically over 150

times higher than the 1850s. The big question is, how did our society emit this much carbon

dioxide into the planet at this fast of a rate?

The reason for this dramatic change was from industrialization and population growth4

from the 1850s to the 1960s, and so on to today, mostly because of the start of burning fossil

fuels such as coal5. The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain when new machine

technology was invented to make work more efficient. With this came textile mills, steam

engines, and other uses of coal to create other types of factories and industries. Most of these

inventions traveled to the rest of Europe and the United States. Even in the late nineteenth

century, electricity began to

be generated and oil was

burned. Our society has

become dependent on the

burning of fossil fuels, which

have actually taken millions

of years to create, yet we

have been able to destroy and

4
Friedrich, J., & Damassa, T. (2014, May 21). The history of carbon dioxide emissions. World Resources
Institute. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from https://www.wri.org/insights/history-carbon-dioxide-emissions
5
Government, N. S. W. (n.d.). Causes of climate change. AdaptNSW. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from
https://www.climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/causes-climate-change#:~:text=Human%20activity%
20has%20rapidly%20increased,gas%20concentrations%20in%20our%20atmosphere
burn these necessary fuels within a few generations. Since 1960, a quarter of greenhouse gas

emissions in the world come from the United States, followed by China and Europe.

The majority of greenhouse gases have come from the the use of fossil fuels to power

transportation, industries, homes, and even cooking, which all accounts for a total of 65% of

man-made produced emissions.6

Surprisingly enough, a link between the increase of industrialization and rising carbon

dioxide levels (hence the increase in global warming) was not made until the middle of the

twentieth century. And even then, this theory was overlooked. The scientist Svante Arrhenius,

was one of the first to emphasize the idea that burning fossil fuels leads to the increase of carbon

dioxide into the Earth. The reason this idea was overlooked for quite some time was because

scientists believed that the increase of the Earth’s temperature and other climate changes such as

rising sea levels would take thousands of years to come into action, and also was under the

impression that oceans would be able to absorb these large amount of the carbon dioxide gases

that industries created.

The idea that changes to the climate could not occur until thousands of years later was

debunked once new technological tools that measured long-wave radiation were invented in the

1950s. Along with that, other studies were created that also showed that carbon dioxide levels

were dramatically increasing. The scientist Charles D. Keeling proved that these levels were

increasing. In 1958, his studies showed that levels of these gases were 315 ppm (parts per

million) compared to 280 ppm in 1750, and have continued to grow every year.

6
Lemmons, R. (2023, April 17). The warming effects of the Industrial Revolution - global
temperatures. Climate Policy Watcher. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from
https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/global-temperatures/the-warming-effects-of-the-industrial-re
volution.html
 Carbon dioxide emissions are accountable for three fourths of all greenhouse gases,

which are currently at an all time high because our society has increased the burning of fossil

fuels over the last 200 years.7 The purpose of greenhouse gases is to trap heat from the sun to

make Earth habitable, however an excess amount of gases can create imbalances that lead to

climate change and global warming because only solar energy is absorbed which keeps heat

close to the Earth compared

to letting it go into space. A

few examples of the

increased release of carbon

are rising sea levels, air

pollution, wildfires,

extinction of species,

spread of diseases and food

disruptions. 89

7
Nunez, C. (2022, May 9). Greenhouse gases, facts and information. Environment. Retrieved April 19,
2023, from
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/greenhouse-gases?rnd=1681861927058&logged
in=true

8
National Geographic. (2022, February 16). Global warming effects. Environment. Retrieved April 19,
2023, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/global-warming-effects

9
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2021, December 21). U.S. Energy Information Administration -
EIA - independent statistics and analysis. Greenhouse gases' effect on climate - U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA). Retrieved April 19, 2023, from
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/greenhouse-gases-and-the-climate.ph
p
 The turning point in global warming became an international concern in 1988.10 The

United States had multiple droughts and wildfires this year along with the hottest summer on

record at the time. In 1989, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created

to allow for more information about the economic and political effects of global warming around

the planet. Shortly after in 1997, the first greenhouse gas cutback was designed, called the Kyoto

Protocal signed by Bill Clinton. However, the United States would back out of this agreement

because of its harmful effects on the economy. Within the next decade, Barack Obama would

sign the United States into the Paris Treaty Agreement with almost 200 other countries to

decrease greenhouse gas emissions and efforts to avoid global temperatures rising by 2 degrees

celsius. But, in 2016 Donald Trump would pull the United States out of this agreement because

he could not “support a deal that punishes the United States.” In 2016 the IPCC reported that we

needed to have the global rising temperature limited to 1.5 degrees celsius in order to prevent

permanant damage to our planet. Luckily enough, Joe Biden reentered the United States in the

Paris Treaty Agreement, however our absence in it over the last five years was a critical time

period for us to cut back on carbon emissions.

Geographer Richard Heede has

researched who has taken carbon

and put it into the atmosphere over

the past centuries. His findings

have declared that around two

thirds of carbon emissions have

10
.comeditors, H. (2017). Climate change history. History.com. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from
https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-and-environment/history-of-climate-change
been produced by 90 fossil fuel corporate companies. Even so, the following 8 global companies

have been found responsible for 20% of emissions since the Industrial Revolution: Saudi

Aramco, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Gazprom, Royal Dutch Shell, National Iranian Oil Co., and

Petroleos Mexicanos. One of the reasons Heede’s study was such groundbreaking knowledge

was because this proved that not everyone was as responsible for emissions as someone else, but

instead identifies a group of similar characteristics (all corporate companies) that have continued

to spread emissions for the past 200 years. Heede’s study created controversy because some

believed that it was unfair to blame these companies when we, the consumers, have also used the

products they have created over these years, yet Heede stated that these companies have

ultimately made these choices for us. Because of his findings, many petitions, protests, and other

actions have been made to decrease the emissions that “carbon majors” produce, because it is

now known what types of companies are emitting the most carbon. For instance, multiple

organizations in the Phillippines created a petition to ask these carbon majors to take

responsibility by helping to fund damages typhoons caused to the country from excessive carbon

emissions that have created climate change. 11

In order to prevent irreversible destruction to our planet, companies needs to enact net

zero emissions by 2050. Numerous corporate companies have come out with pacts to limit

greenhouse gas emissions, however many of these companies are not sticking to their promises

or recording all of their actual emissions that are generated, such as P&G talked about earlier.

Another example of this is BlackRock, which is a large investment firm. They have stated that

they will cut the same amount of emissions as the ones they use by 2050, which is obviously a

11
Starr, D. (2016, August 26). The carbon accountant | science. The Carbon Accountant. Retrieved April
20, 2023, from https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.353.6302.858
tremendous ambition, but failed to explain all crucial details, such as what companies, and how

much of these companies that BlackRock invests in will be included. 12

A firm called Institutional Shareholder Services analyzes what corporations are doing to

reduce carbon emissions through company data. This firm has been evaluating the Standard and

Poor’s 500, which is the stock market of the 500 largest companies in the United States. 215 of

these companies have no targets to reduce carbon emissions whereas only one third of these

companies have set goals to cut down on emissions, and the rest have poor ambitions. If more of

these S&P 500 companies do not create targets to lower carbon emissions, it is most likely these

greenhouse gases will triple by 2050 instead of reach net zero.

In the economic world, cutting down on carbon emissions is difficult especially when

retaining to released emissions that come from Scope 3, which is carbon from suppliers and

consumers. Most of corporate companies have to buy their raw products from other companies.

For example, oil companies Scope 3 would include emissions from cars. So, the carbon emission

from these other companies also are accounted for in the corporate company’s emissions as well.

The issue with this is that there are no regulatory standards that require companies to report

certain information such as the amount of emissions they generate. In other cases such as

BlackRock, most of the shares they have are not directly owned, but maintained for other

corporations. This ultimately limits how much power they have over carbon emissions.

All different types of industries experience the same problems with limiting carbon

emissions. For example, the clothing/apparal industry generates most of their emissions from the

supply chain. Also, a lot of factories that create these clothes come from other countries which

12
Eavis, P., & Krauss, C. (2021, February 22). What's really behind corporate promises on climate
change? The New York Times. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/business/energy-environment/corporations-climate-change.html
require planes to be shipped over. Levi Strauss’ labels are created in factories commonly in

China, Pakistan, and India that need coal plower plants to create. Although they created a Scope

3 target goal, they have yet to reach it and have only increased their emissions by 13% from 2016

to 2019. The reason these corporate companies are not fulfilling their emission targets is because

as of right now, there are no current standards that have forced regulations to ensure companies

are following through with their goals.

There are a few implementations that have been imposed. One global program that was

created was Cap and Trade which is an economic incentive to reduce carbon dioxide. This

strategy is good in theory, however there are many flaws to it because it is loosely constructed

and is not used by all companies.

There are two different parts to the: the cap, and the trade.13 The cap part of it is when the

government places a limit on how much carbon gases can be emitted. These corporations would

receive “emissions permit” which enforce the the limit of greenhouse gases. These limits will be

reduced over time to decrease emissions. The second part of this is trade allows companies who

generate lower emissions to sell their “leftover” carbon to larger corporations that are unable to

lower emissions as easily. This provides an incentive to reduce emissions, because companies

can gain money by selling the rest of their “emissions permit.” Ultimately, a revenue stream

would be created if the federal government auctioned off permits to corporations that had to

reduce their emissions. This entire system not only helps climate change, but also strengthens the

economy, locally and nationally, through the continuous trading of permits.

13
Hananel Director, S., Hananel, S., Director, Jawetz, T., Freeman, M., Johns, M., & Buchanan, M.
J. (2023, April 19). Cap and trade 101. Center for American Progress. Retrieved April 19, 2023,
from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/cap-and-trade-101/
 Thirty years ago, many environmentalists approved the idea of having the government be

in charge of emission permits because the government has much influence over what issues in

society are important. If they emphasized the idea of reducing emissions, citizens and large

corporations would be more considerate into following these ideas. Around this time, most of the

United States and other countries used a command and control approach, where the government

would enforce systematic regulations that companies had to follow. For example, the government

may require companies to only purchase certain types of equipment that would be less harmful to

the environment. The reason the command and control approach was not extremely successful

was because it was much more expensive than what the cap and trade approach would be, which

is market-based. The command and approach was simply the ‘cap’ part, but lacked the trade

which would lower costs and improve the economy at the same time.

Nonetheless, cap and trade would work well if it was designed and implemented

correctly.14 Many of

the reasons it has not

been executed is

because of unstable

regulations. There are

a few proposals that

would allow the cap

and trade system to

work smoothly around

the globe. One of these

14
Gaille, L. (2019, April 15). 20 Cap and trade system pros and cons. Vittana.org. Retrieved April 19,
2023, from https://vittana.org/20-cap-and-trade-system-pros-and-cons
being to have strict and clear rules for companies to enter this system, such as having accurate

data in order to make sure these companies are following their emission permits. This data

should include all scope levels (1,2, and 3), because including raw materials and consumption of

a product from the consumer is often overlooked when companies set targets for emissions

reductions. Another aspect that should be added is some type of monitoring device to make sure

corporate companies are following through with their reductions. As of right now, the

government only has an honor system for these companies to follow. If their data is constantly

being followed, it will ensure companies to stick with their targets. Another issue that arises is

leniency. The point of the cap and trade system is to have the option to trade permits with other

companies when necessary. However, political issues have arose in the past because permits will

be given away for political gains if prior emissions were already low. This creates an

unstructured organization as some companies may continuously rely on the government’s help.

There needs to be a zero tolerance policy in this case in order for companies to obey the carbon

limits. Currently, the cap and trade system is not technically nation-wide or global. The European

Union is working on implementing this, and numerous other countries and states are as well.

However, most of the states are creating their own cap and trade programs or are already a part

of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is a cap system in terms of electricity

emissions. In order for the cap and trade system to work, it needs to be initiated globally, or even

just nationally. There is no consistency because multiple states and countries are involved in their

own systems. There should be some type of equalized system spread across the nation and even

globally because most corporate companies get their raw materials from other states or countries.

If they want to limit their Scope 3 emissions, other countries also need to enact the same system

so overall emissions from corporate companies are lowered.

 If implemented correctly, there are several benefits that the cap and trade system,

economically, and environmentally. One of these including its efficiency. This is one of the least

expensive ways to cut down on emissions because the more emissions that are cut down, the

more money a company will make since they can sell their permits to corporations who are

cutting emissions at a slower rate. This increases available capital and regulates additional fines

for these larger companies. Also, government revenues will also increase from this. Sometimes

the government will auction off permits to the highest payer, which will create funds that can be

allocated towards further environmentalist issues such as renewable energy. One of the most

important aspects of this system is the moderate change in permits given to corporations every

year. A large goal of the cap and trade system is to keep the rising temperature under 2 degrees

celsius. In order to accomplish this, it is important to slowly reduce emission permits in order to

see results by 2050. 15

It is important to recognize that the cap and trade system is a valuable market-based

approach to limit rising carbon dioxide emissions. Obviously, there have been numerous flaws

found within this system, but if designed well it has much potential. It is especially critical to

start this process soon because our we (all humans) are running out of time to make a change.

The reason cap and trade is so beneficial is because of how quickly it is able to cut down on

emissions based on the economic aspect. Clearly, the environmental crisis is only becoming

worse. In order to truly stop the amount of greenhouse gases being released, we need to go to the

top of the problem: the producers. Corporations have created over 70% of carbon emissions

15
Schmalansee and Stavins, R. and R. (2019, May 16). Learning from thirty years of Cap and trade.
Resources for the Future. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from
https://www.resources.org/archives/learning-thirty-years-cap-trade/
since 198816, which have only increased since then. These corporations need to be held

accountable in order to successfully cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

16
Riley, A. T. (2017, July 10). 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says.
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/100-companies-are-responsible-for-71-of-global-em
issions-study-says/
Works Cited

Concerned Scientists, U. of. (2013, December 9). Largest producers of industrial carbon

emissions. Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/largest-producers-industrial-carbon-emissions

Nations, U. (2007, June). From Stockholm to Kyoto: A brief history of climate change.

United Nations. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/stockholm-kyoto-brief-history-climate-change#:~

:text=In%201988%2C%20global%20warming%20and,public%20debate%20and%20poli

tical%20agenda

Putt del Pino and Larsen, S. and J. (2009, September 21). Operational boundaries of

GHG Emissions. World Resources Institute. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from

https://www.wri.org/data/operational-boundaries-ghg-emissions

Friedrich, J., & Damassa, T. (2014, May 21). The history of carbon dioxide emissions.

World Resources Institute. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from

https://www.wri.org/insights/history-carbon-dioxide-emissions

Government, N. S. W. (n.d.). Causes of climate change. AdaptNSW. Retrieved April 19,

2023, from

https://www.climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/causes-climate-change#:~:text=Hum

an%20activity%20has%20rapidly%20increased,gas%20concentrations%20in%20our%2

0atmosphere
Lemmons, R. (2023, April 17). The warming effects of the Industrial Revolution - global

temperatures. Climate Policy Watcher. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from

https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/global-temperatures/the-warming-effects-of-the-in

dustrial-revolution.html

National Geographic. (2022, February 16). Global warming effects. Environment.

Retrieved April 19, 2023, from

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/global-warming-effects

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2021, December 21). U.S. Energy Information

Administration - EIA - independent statistics and analysis. Greenhouse gases' effect on

climate - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Retrieved April 19, 2023, from

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/greenhouse-gases-and

-the-climate.php

.comeditors, H. (2017). Climate change history. History.com. Retrieved April 19, 2023,

from

https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-and-environment/history-of-climate-cha

nge

Starr, D. (2016, August 26). The carbon accountant | science. The Carbon Accountant.

Retrieved April 20, 2023, from

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.353.6302.858
 Eavis, P., & Krauss, C. (2021, February 22). What's really behind corporate promises on

climate change? The New York Times. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/business/energy-environment/corporations-climate

-change.html

Hananel Director, S., Hananel, S., Director, Jawetz, T., Freeman, M., Johns, M., &

Buchanan, M. J. (2023, April 19). Cap and trade 101. Center for American Progress.

Retrieved April 19, 2023, from

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/cap-and-trade-101/

Gaille, L. (2019, April 15). 20 Cap and trade system pros and cons. Vittana.org.

Retrieved April 19, 2023, from https://vittana.org/20-cap-and-trade-system-pros-and-cons

Schmalansee and Stavins, R. and R. (2019, May 16). Learning from thirty years of Cap

and trade. Resources for the Future. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from

https://www.resources.org/archives/learning-thirty-years-cap-trade/

Riley, A. T. (2017, July 10). 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions,

study says. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/100-companies-are-responsible-for

-71-of-global-emissions-study-says/