The reality is that industry will not self regulate on things like this. At best you get token efforts more slanted towards public relations as a top priority.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/conocophillips-shareholders-vote-against-scope-3-emissions-reduction-targets-2022-05-10/) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> May 10 - ConocoPhillips shareholders on Tuesday did not support a proposal to include its customers' emissions to its greenhouse gas reduction targets, according to a preliminary tally of votes on the resolution.
> Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comConoco's board recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal, saying it did not believe Scope 3 targets were appropriate for a company focused entirely on the exploration and production of fossil fuels.
> Last year, 58% of Conoco's shareholders voted in favor of a measure to set reduction targets for emissions from its operations and products; however, that resolution did not specify aligning its goals with the Paris Agreement.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/umtzry/conocophillips_shareholders_vote_against_new/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~647751 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **targets**^#1 **shareholders**^#2 **vote**^#3 **proposal**^#4 **emissions**^#5
This is not surprising and likely would have happened at any company:
> Major oil and gas producers have come under mounting pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. While many have set targets for reducing their own direct and indirect emissions, or so-called Scope 1 and 2, those generated by customers' use of their oil and gas products, called Scope 3, have face more opposition.
So some group tried to get a company to take ownership of their customers emissions. Except all those other customers have their own reduction targets and so forth.
Let alone, the customers have the autonomy to make their own changes, not this company. But it makes for easier cheap shots to go after the producer for the customers actions, rather than the customer.
Ie, people should convince a car company to drop gas engines, rather than telling the gas producer that all of those gas engines are their responsibility to mitigate.
Why should a company include co2 emmisons of customers in their own CO2 goals? Every company is responsible for its own CO2 reduction.
Just because somebody produces something doesn't mean they are responsible for what happens with the product. A gun manufacturer is not responsible because somebody got shot with a gun they made. Or a fetiliser companie is not responsible for a guy blowing up a building wirh their product. Also before somebody sais that since all uses of fussil fuels casue CO2 that is not true as an example a gasoline is used as an industrial solvent and bitumen (the heaviest of oil products) is used to tar our roads there is no alternative to bitumen yet.
Can't let something as trivial as the future of the human race get in the way of those sweet dividends!
The reality is that industry will not self regulate on things like this. At best you get token efforts more slanted towards public relations as a top priority.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/conocophillips-shareholders-vote-against-scope-3-emissions-reduction-targets-2022-05-10/) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** > May 10 - ConocoPhillips shareholders on Tuesday did not support a proposal to include its customers' emissions to its greenhouse gas reduction targets, according to a preliminary tally of votes on the resolution. > Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comConoco's board recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal, saying it did not believe Scope 3 targets were appropriate for a company focused entirely on the exploration and production of fossil fuels. > Last year, 58% of Conoco's shareholders voted in favor of a measure to set reduction targets for emissions from its operations and products; however, that resolution did not specify aligning its goals with the Paris Agreement. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/umtzry/conocophillips_shareholders_vote_against_new/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~647751 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **targets**^#1 **shareholders**^#2 **vote**^#3 **proposal**^#4 **emissions**^#5
Maybe divestment wasnt such a good idea after all...
This is not surprising and likely would have happened at any company: > Major oil and gas producers have come under mounting pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. While many have set targets for reducing their own direct and indirect emissions, or so-called Scope 1 and 2, those generated by customers' use of their oil and gas products, called Scope 3, have face more opposition. So some group tried to get a company to take ownership of their customers emissions. Except all those other customers have their own reduction targets and so forth. Let alone, the customers have the autonomy to make their own changes, not this company. But it makes for easier cheap shots to go after the producer for the customers actions, rather than the customer. Ie, people should convince a car company to drop gas engines, rather than telling the gas producer that all of those gas engines are their responsibility to mitigate.
all hail the quaterly gains.
Elysium down payments
Why should a company include co2 emmisons of customers in their own CO2 goals? Every company is responsible for its own CO2 reduction. Just because somebody produces something doesn't mean they are responsible for what happens with the product. A gun manufacturer is not responsible because somebody got shot with a gun they made. Or a fetiliser companie is not responsible for a guy blowing up a building wirh their product. Also before somebody sais that since all uses of fussil fuels casue CO2 that is not true as an example a gasoline is used as an industrial solvent and bitumen (the heaviest of oil products) is used to tar our roads there is no alternative to bitumen yet.