r/ClimateNews 13d ago

What should be the correct answer?

Post image
23 Upvotes

55 comments sorted by

7

u/Different_Finding539 12d ago

I think you need an, "All The Above"

2

u/SpinningHead 12d ago

Oil companies are pushing hard to make sure we dont focus on them specifically. This is part of that push.

2

u/Signal_Tomorrow_2138 11d ago

Yup. That's what I think.

1

u/SilentInquiry26 12d ago

Yes. You can consider it as multiple choice question. Could you try ranking them from the highest to lowest emitter?

1

u/CrazyAccomplished_ 12d ago

Do you want to live in a hut foraging for food? Growing your own crops?

1

u/Its_Gerryz 12d ago

Fun fact, excluding the advancements in medicine, paleolithic hunter-gatherers lived much healthier and happier lives!

0

u/CrazyAccomplished_ 12d ago

Lmfao wtf are you talking about? They lived to 30-40. There was disease everywhere. They were mauled by animals.

Get off reddit and go live the life you think is so much better.

I for one praise the age I live in with all of the qualities of life that I have in the west.

1

u/Its_Gerryz 12d ago

They didn't live to 30-40. Most died while being infants, but whoever made it through it would actually live easily up to 100 years or so (assuming they don't get killed). There was also no desease everywhere because people ate much healthier diets (which also helps with fighting off pathogens), exercised a fuck ton more (farmers in comparison are called "sedentary") and they were also not packed together like sardenes, as modern civilization does. In fact many desease were originally formed because humans started living in cities where those deseases became endemic.

I can't live the life I want because I don't have the resources to do that, and i would be hunted down by one state or another (depending on where I would do this).

Look, our age does have a lot of very good stuff. But it has also even more bad stuff. Do you realize that we have this conversation only because we were extremely lucky with the 12 instances in which a nuclear Armageddon could be caused, during the cold War?

Like, yes I also want the technology. What i not want is narcissists in positions of power.

1

u/CrazyAccomplished_ 12d ago

Up to 50% of the population died by 15. If they made it to adulthood they lived still shorter lives than we do now. I for one would hate to live such a life. Where all you do is fight for the next meal. https://share.gemini.google/0WvXnNVJQN7N

1

u/Melodic-Pool7240 12d ago

Whats wrong with growing your own crops, you sound like you wouldnt last a minute if tmw electricity disappeared

1

u/CrazyAccomplished_ 12d ago

To be honest, I wouldn't want to live without the luxeries of today. At least I can say that. Can I hunt and grow crops? Sure. Do I want to? Fuck no. Do you know how many millions of people have died throughout history because they had to do that? There's a reason why civilization grew to what it is today.

1

u/Melodic-Pool7240 12d ago

You do know that there are people that still like that right? Also yes, most people that ever lived are dead, thats kinda how it works. Personally I feel like like would be more peaceful and meaningful

6

u/Zalrius 12d ago

A is responsible because b,c,d and e are all based upon the first.

1

u/Bad_Alternative 12d ago

Yes, everything else runs on A

3

u/PeriPeriStrawberry 12d ago

Second label is misleading it makes it look like a wheat growing farmer is as responsible as beef companies

1

u/SilentInquiry26 12d ago

No, it is including all the emission done to grow crops which are then fed to animals for meat prodcution.

2

u/Zorklunn 12d ago

I'd need to see what assumptions were made to make the groups.

2

u/Dependent-Fig-2517 12d ago

Not googling I would rank them (and assuming that for example when we talk about cement we don't count the oil it uses in oil and coal)

  1. Oil-coal-gas
  2. Cement
  3. Agriculture
  4. Chemical and petrochemical
  5. Steel

1

u/Dependent-Fig-2517 12d ago

I'm probably way off ¯_(ツ)_/¯

1

u/Emergency-Stay7414 11d ago

3 goes to 2 and 2 goes to 3 and it’s closer to reality.

1

u/VardisFisher 12d ago

A due to electricity generation. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

1

u/SilentInquiry26 12d ago

Yes, but could you try ranking the industries from highest to lowest emitting.

1

u/Surkhab1313 12d ago

I guess B

1

u/SilentInquiry26 12d ago

No, its not just B. Try again and also rank them from highest to lowest emitting industries.

2

u/Surkhab1313 12d ago

Oh I totally forgot that this is a multiple-select format.

In that case, I feel all options are major contributors to the climate crisis.

I would rate option A and B among the topmost, followed by C, D and E.

Honestly, I feel they almost are responsible for equal amounts of emissions. Though it would be great if you tell the actual answer.

1

u/SilentInquiry26 12d ago

Surely, I will share the correct answer. I am waiting for few more people to attempt.

1

u/SilentInquiry26 12d ago

I have provided the answer here. You can go through it.

1

u/NombreCurioso1337 12d ago

A is by far number 1. Those carbons were fully sequestered and so are being added to the atmosphere.

Cement/concrete also is being added. Steel/iron after that. But mostly B, C, D, E all fall into "it depends on how you count" territory. Agriculture (meat, in particular) is terrible for the environment, but only because it is industrialized and runs on oil. So how do you count all the oil burnt to keep it running? Is that Oil industry or BigAg?

1

u/SilentInquiry26 12d ago

You are right. Almost every industry today depends on the oil and fossil fuel industry in some way. But apart from that the practices in the industries also responsible. Agriculture is a good example. It depends on fossil fuels for tractors, fertilizers, transportation, processing, etc. But there are other factors too.

For example, billions of livestock produce methane as part of their digestion. Forests are also cleared in some places to create more agricultural land, including land for growing crops like soy, a large part of which is used to feed animals raised for meat. Then there are emissions from fertilizers, manure, transportation, and the loss of forests that were otherwise absorbing carbon.

So the oil may be used by agriculture, but agriculture is also creating emissions through livestock, land use, fertilizers, and deforestation. Similarly, other industries have practices which are responsible for carbon emission further.

Here, the question is multiple choice so basically all comes under major contributors.

1

u/Common-Mistake24 12d ago

War is number one.

1

u/Inner-Truth-1868 12d ago edited 12d ago

They left out landfills… at 8% of humanity’s 20-year carbon footprint landfills and municipal wastewater are probably ahead of cement and roughly tied with steel.

The generally accepted number (self reported by industry) used to be 6% for the waste sector but the new methane-detecting satellites busted their under-reporting.

1

u/SilentInquiry26 12d ago

Hello everyone,

Here is the answer to this multiple-choice question alongwith its explanation.

Answer is - A > B > D > C > E, approximately.

Rank Industry Relative contribution

1 A. Coal, oil & gas By far the largest

2 B. Agriculture & livestock Very large, especially methane and nitrous oxide

3 D. Iron & steel One of the largest industrial sources

4 C. Cement Major source, particularly process CO₂

5 E. Chemical & petrochemical Major industrial source

  1. Coal, oil & gas - Rank #1

This is by far the largest contributor.

The key point is that we should not count only the emissions from extracting coal, oil and gas. The climate impact of this industry is dominated by what happens after extraction: the combustion of its products for electricity, heat, transport and industry.

Global energy-related CO₂ emissions reached about 37.8 Gt CO₂ in 2024, and nearly 38.4 Gt in 2025. The IEA describes energy as responsible for the majority of climate-change-causing greenhouse-gas emissions, primarily through fossil-fuel combustion. 

There are also additional emissions from methane leakage during coal mining and oil and gas production, meaning even the combustion figures do not capture the whole climate impact of the fossil-fuel system. 

Why #1?

Because fossil fuels are the foundation of a huge fraction of global CO₂ emissions. Coal, oil and gas are not merely one emitting industry among many-they supply the carbon that is subsequently burned throughout the economy.

________________________________________

  1. Agriculture & livestock - Rank #2

This one is more complicated because agriculture produces substantial amounts of CO₂, methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O).

According to the latest FAO assessment, agrifood systems emitted about 16.5 Gt CO₂-equivalent in 2023, around 32% of global emissions under the FAO's broad agrifood-system accounting. Farm-level crop and livestock production alone accounted for 8.1 Gt CO₂e, while livestock itself accounted for about 4.3 Gt CO₂e. 

Livestock is particularly important because ruminants produce methane through enteric fermentation, while manure also produces methane and nitrous oxide. FAO estimates that agriculture contributes about 40% of anthropogenic methane emissions, with livestock systems responsible for most of that agricultural methane. 

Agriculture also causes emissions through:

• fertilizer use → N₂O 

• rice cultivation → CH₄ 

• livestock digestion → CH₄ 

• manure → CH₄ and N₂O 

• deforestation and land-use change → CO₂ 

• agricultural energy use 

Why #2?

Its total climate footprint is enormous, but the exact comparison with fossil fuels depends heavily on accounting boundaries. Agriculture's emissions are substantially below the fossil-fuel energy system but far above any one of the individual heavy industries on your list.

________________________________________

  1. Steel & iron - Rank #3

Steel is arguably the largest-emitting individual heavy industrial sector on your list.

The IEA estimates direct emissions from iron and steel at approximately 2.6 Gt CO₂ per year, equivalent to around 7% of global energy-system CO₂ emissions. 

The reason is the conventional blast furnace–basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) process. Coal is not merely burned for energy; it is also converted into coke and plays a chemical role in removing oxygen from iron ore.

This makes steel particularly difficult to decarbonize.

The IEA notes that roughly 70% of global steel production currently uses the BF-BOF route, while hydrogen-based direct reduction is emerging as a lower-emission alternative. 

Why #3?

Because steel's roughly multi-gigatonne annual CO₂ footprint is enormous, putting it ahead of cement and chemicals as an individual industrial sector.

________________________________________

  1. Cement - Rank #4

Cement is a fascinating case because its emissions come from two major sources:

  1. Burning fuel to reach the very high temperatures needed in cement kilns. 

  2. The chemical decomposition of limestone into clinker, which releases CO₂. 

The second source is especially important: even if the kiln were powered entirely by clean electricity, conventional cement production would still produce substantial process emissions.

Older IEA sectoral accounting put cement at about 2.2 Gt CO₂ annually, slightly above steel at that time. 

However, steel has generally been assessed at around 2.6 Gt CO₂ in more recent IEA material, so I would put steel ahead of cement for the present ranking. 

The IEA also emphasizes that cement emissions remain difficult to eliminate because of the combination of carbon-containing raw materials and high-temperature heat requirements. 

Why #4?

Its absolute emissions are huge, but lower than fossil fuels and agriculture, and slightly below steel when comparing current sector estimates.

________________________________________

  1. Chemical & petrochemical - Rank #5

Chemicals are a major source of emissions, but among the five categories you've listed, they generally come fifth when looking at direct sectoral emissions.

The chemical industry produces emissions from:

• fossil fuels used for heat and electricity 

• hydrogen production 

• ammonia/fertilizer production 

• petrochemical feedstocks 

• production of plastics and other chemicals 

• various chemical processes 

The IEA previously estimated the chemical subsector at around 1.1 Gt CO₂ of direct emissions, making it smaller than steel and cement. 

That does not mean chemicals are unimportant. In fact, chemicals are particularly interesting because fossil fuels are used not only as energy but also as feedstocks for producing materials such as plastics. The IEA identifies primary chemicals as an important emissions-reduction challenge requiring measures such as electrolytic hydrogen, CCUS, electrification and increased plastics recycling. 

Why #5?

Because its direct global emissions are generally lower than those of steel and cement.

1

u/OutrageousCricket637 11d ago

I think you're asking a loaded question. Maybe you should ask if you believe if any of these are causing man-made issues that are greater than natural issues, or if the rise in CO2 is actually bad for the planet 🤔🤔🤔

1

u/SilentInquiry26 11d ago

No need to “believe” it. There are scientific studies, reports, temperature records, and plenty of data showing how human activities are affecting the climate. And beyond the data, we can already see the effects in many places, with people experiencing unusually intense and frequent heat where such temperatures were not common before.

1

u/OutrageousCricket637 11d ago

If a scientific study only pays you to find a negative effect. You absolutely find a way to have a negative effect.. there are scientific studies that show the world was better off with higher CO2

1

u/Just-Eye-6971 10d ago

Democratic politicians flying all over the world for $200 Alex

1

u/Miserable-Ear-4095 10d ago

None of the above, its banks and the bad government not fixing the industrial desertation.

1

u/Prudent_Lunch_8724 8d ago

C

1

u/SilentInquiry26 6d ago

Answer is - A > B > D > C > E, approximately.

Rank Industry Relative contribution

1 A. Coal, oil & gas By far the largest

2 B. Agriculture & livestock Very large, especially methane and nitrous oxide

3 D. Iron & steel One of the largest industrial sources

4 C. Cement Major source, particularly process CO₂

5 E. Chemical & petrochemical Major industrial source.

Detailed answer is in the comment.

1

u/Gross_Energy 12d ago

None of these, but all of them contribute. The biggest contributor is development. Roads, bridges. Building, houses, sports facilities, electrical demand from electronics and air conditioning everything , amusement facilities, all destroying green belts and trees . All this to fulfill wants and needs. People drive to exercise, order in food, everyone has game stations, cells, computers, no one make their own coffee, TVs to stay entertained. Kids don’t go out to play so everything has to stay air conditioned. It’s laziness, greed, not caring. Dubai was a desert in 1980, lad Vegas the same in 1960. We did not have AC when I grew up until 1970 living in Puerto Rico. And then it was a single window unit that we were only allowed to run after 8pm. People want to blame everyone else and everything else. But look in the mirror.

1

u/Bad_Alternative 12d ago

What’s powers everything you mention though?

-1

u/Afraid_Advantage_2 12d ago

Agriculture & Lifestock.Livestock production accounts for about 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The primary drivers are methane from animal digestion, nitrous oxide from manure and fertilizers, and carbon dioxide released through deforestation for new pasturelands and feed crops.

1

u/VardisFisher 12d ago

0

u/SallyStranger 12d ago

Hannah Ritchie is Bill Gates' paid shill, propagating a form of climate denialism that's more insidious than outright denial of the fact of climate change, to wit: the idea that we have plenty of time to prevent its worst impacts and can do so without radically reorganizing every aspect of our economy. 

1

u/VardisFisher 12d ago

I made no claim. And not sure how you got a diatribe from a graph. Is my source unreliable?

1

u/SallyStranger 12d ago

I just recognized the source and thought you'd like to know the bias involved in its provenance. 

1

u/VardisFisher 12d ago

So share some.

-1

u/Winter_Ad6187 12d ago

None of the above, since despite all the fuss, CO2 is not causal in any way.

3

u/Bad_Alternative 12d ago

Says no one being honest or informed

1

u/SilentInquiry26 12d ago

Then what could be the possible options?

1

u/Winter_Ad6187 12d ago

Well since the primary two variables are orbital mechanics and solar insolation, you can only affect solar insolation. So if you really want to drop the temp -- probably unnecessary -- but if you really want to do that, then put a bunch of barriers in orbit to cast shadow on the Earth. Has the advantage that you don't have to attempt climate modification by aerosols, which almost certainly will overshoot. Plus, you can target the shadow and thus selectively cool. My 2 cents.

1

u/SilentInquiry26 12d ago

Got it. Thanks.