425
submitted 1 year ago by schizoidman@lemmy.ml to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] cyd@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Per capita numbers are very, very important: they tell us where the low hanging fruit are. The people emitting the most per capita should be pressured most heavily to reduce emissions, because they're the ones who are polluting most unnecessarily.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I agree with the idea, but there's no getting out of needing heat in Canada.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Except we're also setting high temperature records in Canada.

Even with that, it still pisses me off when I hear my fellow Canadians (mostly from a certain province that exports fossil fuel) saying "why should Canada do anything when these other countries are worse".

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Ok, doesn't change that we need a ton of heat in the winter. An average 1.5 C change doesn't matter much when we have to heat from -20 to +20, a delta T of 40 degs.

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

In a perfect democracy perhaps, but in the world we live in the power is in the hands of very few. Id also argue there's too much noise using it to represent unnecessary pollution, as a single person running a generator in antartica would be horrible per capita - but quite so necessary. Larger populations have the benefit of larger systems, thereby operating more efficiently. A country could also reasonably just triple their population to increase their pollution "quota", cause money - and a system that can be that manipulated isnt that reasonable of a system.

Looking directly at pollution on the other hand is more like looking directly at what causes the problem (climate change), and minimizing centralized sources of it would have a much more noticable effect. Especially those that have a greater population to landmass ratio (thereby having less untouched human areas) and so less so a positive effect on greenhouse gas removal.

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Let's frame this in inequality terms. Suppose (not the real numbers) we have the top 1% emitting half the greenhouse gases to fuel their lifestyles, and the bottom 99% emit the other half. You're saying we should focus equally on the two groups when looking for emissions reductions???

[-] MadCybertist@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I mean….. does Mother Earth give a shit if you’re a 1%-er?

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
425 points (99.3% liked)

World News

38978 readers
1310 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS