According to the companies’ emissions reports, it’s none of the above. Instead, the culprit is a century-old manufacturer that President Joe Biden praised for its clean energy efforts during a factory visit this month, whose philanthropic efforts have turned his small west-central hometown of Columbus , Indiana, in a modernist architectural paradise.
Cummins Inc., one of the world’s largest makers of diesel engines and generators, was responsible for a remarkable 1.17 billion metric tons of Scope 3 carbon emissions in 2021, according to its climate disclosures. That’s more than the world’s largest gas producer, Gazprom Inc.; more than Exxon Mobil and BP Plc combined; more than the combined total of GM, Toyota Motor Corp. and Volkswagen AG, which collectively make nearly 23 million cars each year. In fact, the figure equates to roughly one tonne out of every 50 emitted worldwide in 2019.
This almost certainly exaggerates Cummins’ responsibility. The same gallon of diesel can produce Scope 3 emissions for both Cummins (which makes the engine), ConocoPhillips (which produces the crude oil) and Phillips 66 (which refines it into diesel), so the total volume of ‘scope 3 broadcasts in the world. it is several times higher than the sum of global emissions.
This is in many ways a result of how Scope 3 is measured. An automaker’s Scope 1 emissions come from fuel burned on-site, while Scope 2 incorporates the impact of its consumption of electricity Scope 3 reflects the wider effect of a company’s products, so it would add up the lifetime driving emissions of every vehicle that rolls off its production line.
All of this likely contributes to the remarkably high score: “Cummins products can be in the field for a long time,” says Blair Claflin, a company spokesman.
While almost every barrel of oil pumped by Exxon Mobil by 2022 will have released its emissions into the atmosphere by the middle of this year, engines made by Cummins may still be coughing up exhaust fumes well into the 2030s , giving you their activities in any year. a footprint of a decade.
The nature of its customer base also adds to the number: heavy trucks go on for roughly 750,000 miles or more, as opposed to the 200,000 miles after which passenger cars are scrapped. Their engines are also larger and subject to less stringent fuel economy standards than the cars and even the heavy trucks they drive. (1)
In addition to this, the judgment calls required for scope 3 calculations allow estimates to be skewed to the high or low side. Canadian oil sands producer Suncor Energy Inc. reported implausibly low numbers for many years, before correcting them in 2020. Russian company Rosneft Oil Co. it still cites figures that are too low compared to its oil production. Cummins, a company whose mid-20th-century leader was a prominent ally of Martin Luther King and still wears its social conscience on its sleeve, may veer in the opposite direction, inflating the number.
There is a cynical and virtuous reason that companies might want to do this. High estimates now, followed by lower ones down the road, make it easier to reach ambitious goals. Cummins, for example, promises to reduce scope 3 pollution by 25% by 2030.
There is no doubt about the aspiration involved. Biden’s visit this month coincided with an announcement of $1 billion in spending to make engines that can run on low-carbon fuels, part of which will also go toward assembling electrolyzers to produce green hydrogen. It has invested in a German battery business, bought companies that provide parts for electric powertrains and plans to halve emissions from its plants by 2030.
Their own facilities will be carbon neutral by 2050, although they fall short of a long-term promise comparable to Scope 3. This is not entirely surprising. There’s a limit to how much change is possible when you’ve been building diesel engines since 1919. One of the reasons today’s powerful companies often fall victim to upstart disruptors is that trying to get ahead of technological change can lead to such disaster. often like transformation.
Take Johnson Matthey Plc. The British company makes precious metal compounds for catalytic converters that remove pollutants from vehicle tailpipes. In recent years, it has tried to position itself in electric battery materials, to compensate for the imminent decline of its core business. The strategy was an ignominious failure, leading to £420m ($525m) in write-offs, the resignation of its chief executive and a 41% drop in shares over the past five years.
That’s a fate Cummins would hope to avoid, but the task is easier said than done. A world in which the trucking industry has completely decarbonized is a world in which the decades of diesel expertise it has developed have been rendered obsolete by the rise of fuel cell, catenary or battery electric trucks like Tesla Inc.’s Semi The energy transition was never easy, even for companies committed to advancing it.
More from Bloomberg Opinion:
The biggest polluters hide in plain sight: Fickling & He
The global transition to electric vehicles is based on a Chinese company: Anjani Trivedi
Chile is betting big on the hydrogen revolution: Eduardo Porter
(1) Most of the efficiency improvements achieved by car and truck manufacturers these days come from using lighter materials, improving aerodynamics, and using power more efficiently, rather than drastic changes to the century-old design of the internal combustion engine.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy and commodities. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times.
More stories like this one are available at bloomberg.com/opinion
