What companies are not eco-friendly
There are a lot of companies out there that tout themselves as being eco-friendly. But what about the ones that aren’t? Let’s take a look at some of the least eco-friendly companies and explore why they might not be good for the environment.
The list of the top 10 most polluting companies in the world
The least eco-friendly company on the list is China’s Coal, with emissions of over two billion metric tons in 2018. The company has been criticized for its environmental record and has been the target of protests by environmentalists.
As a result of the impact of this company, there are changes in the position and movement of the groundwater level and the hydrographic network, deterioration of the water quality of shallow aquifers, the water regime of the soil layer, reduction of groundwater resources, increase in mechanical compaction of soils, etc.
The second least eco-friendly company is Saudi Arabia’s Aramco, with emissions of over one billion metric tons in 2018. Environmental pollution occurs as a result of the extraction, transportation, processing, and disposal of oil and gas products, as well as a result of unauthorized discharge of oil products into water bodies, man-made accidents, and industrial production. Effluent from urban areas, seaports, and various industrial sites is also contaminated with these substances.
The third least eco-friendly company is Russia’s Gazprom, with emissions of over 900 million metric tons in 2018. What concerns the eco-community the most are the methods used by Gazprom and their gas flarings. The main products that are harmful to the environment emerging during gas flaring are nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, aliphatic saturated hydrocarbons, and sulfur dioxide in the presence of sulfur compounds in the produced gas, benzo(a)pyrene.
The fourth least eco-friendly company is India’s Coal, with emissions of over 800 million metric tons in 2018. The extraction of coal led to the subsidence of the soil in India. The existing biocenosis is disturbed, which contributes to soil erosion.
The formation of depression funnels, which arise due to the forced pumping of groundwater from mines, is also involved in this process. Their level is greatly reduced, which leads to dehydration of the upper soil layer.
The fifth least eco-friendly company is America’s ExxonMobil, with emissions of over 700 million metric tons in 2018. Its factories daily emit into the environment 50 tons of sulfur in the form of sulfur dioxide, which, when combined with water, immediately gives sulfurous acid, which falls in the form of acid rain, which has great chemical activity.
Pollution of the atmosphere with various harmful gasses and solid particles leads to the fact that the air of large cities becomes dangerous for people’s lives. Of particular danger are deadly fogs descending on large cities nearby ExxonMobil’s factories.
The sixth least eco-friendly company is Brazil’s Vale, with emissions of over 600 million metric tons in 2018. The mining industry, by definition, has an extremely negative impact on the environment, since it destroys the integrity of the subsoil, disrupts the ecosystem, and leads to anthropogenic pollution of air and water resources.
Over the past years, more than 6 billion tons of iron ore raw materials have been mined, which has completely led to an irreversible transformation of the environment from a natural to a technogenic ecosystem. Further development of open pit deposits leads to an increase in the depth of quarries and an increase in the harmful burden on the environment and human health. At the same time, Vale mines can be exhausted in the next 20–30 years.
The seventh least eco-friendly company is Australia’s BHP Billiton, with emissions of over 500 million metric tons in 2018. Not mentioning the harm that other mining companies cause, BHP Billiton also makes industrial dumps. Improper storage of solid and industrial waste leads to an increase in the level of environmental pollution.
Undoubtedly, pollution cannot be completely avoided, but if garbage is handled correctly, such pollution can be made much lower.
The eighth least eco-friendly company is South Africa’s Eskom, with emissions of over 400 million metric tons in 2018. The company has been criticized for the combustion of fossil solid and liquid fuels. It is accompanied by the release of sulfur, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, as well as nitrogen oxides, dust, soot, and other pollutants.
The construction and operation of large Eskom power plants lead to the resettlement of African people from the flood zone, the destruction of valuable fish species, for which dams become insurmountable obstacles on the way to spawning grounds, and the loss of forests and highly fertile lands, an increase in the risk of destructive earthquakes in foothill and mountainous areas, an increase in the risk of catastrophic downstream flooding, landscape change, and destruction.
The ninth least eco-friendly company is Indonesia’s PT Adaro Energy, with emissions of over 300 million metric tons in 2018. The company has been criticized for creating industrial zones. Such zones are usually located at a safe distance from cities, but they have residential areas for employees working in factories.
In these industrial zones, there is no strict control over the state of the environment and the level of harmful emissions, which leads to pollution and environmental degradation around industrial zones.
Most of these Indonesian industrial zones release chemicals. According to some studies, this leads to the fact that more than 5.8 million people live in the ecologically dangerous zone.
The tenth least eco-friendly company is Colombia’s Cerrejon, with emissions of over 200 million metric tons in 2018. The company has been the target of protests by environmentalists because coal mining here is done in an open pit. That is, the cheapest and at the same time the dirtiest way. Indigenous communities suffer from environmental pollution, face illegal land acquisition, irreparable damage to indigenous traditional habitats, destruction of their cultural and religious sites, and harassment of indigenous activists, environmentalists, and advocates for the rights of indigenous peoples.