>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?
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?